phiinix Profile Blog Joined February 2011 United States 1168 Posts #161 not sure how much experience you have teaching other people chess to have an idea of how he's picking it up relatively, but it would have been interesting to coach someone who isn't great at sc2 (or even plays at all) to see how they compare

RevTiberius Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 353 Posts Last Edited: 2013-01-22 06:35:41 #162



Thank you very much for all the feedback. Here are my answers. Those of you who messaged me directly will get a direct response. On January 22 2013 06:00 Ixirawr wrote:

Any chance Prye (or you) could stream your lessons and then upload them for the people following your blog? I and I'm sure quite a few others might be interested in seeing that.



I just started getting into chess a few weeks ago. I'm currently at a lowly ~800 on Chess.com. But after reading this post, I've realized my lack of knowledge regarding tactics is a bigger flaw than I thought it was. I have a beginners chess book I bought but it's just so dry I never made any progress in it. Guess I'll have to pick it back up.



Also, do you have any more recommendations as far as YouTube channels go? I've been watching ChessNetwork (http://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork) and feel as if I'm picking a bit of information up as I go. Hearing someone experienced go through their though processes has been eye opening, at the very least.



I'll have to ask Pyre about that. Maybe we can occasionally post stuff on a secondary channel or something.



As for video channels and books, what is good for you mainly depends on what level you are at. For example, the materials I practice chess with wouldn't help you very much and vice versa. A lot of people recommend Kingsscrusher's youtube channel. That may be worth looking into.

Though to make serious progress, watching videos isn't good enough. I would recommend you focus on playing games over-the-board and join a local chess club.





I'll have to ask Pyre about that. Maybe we can occasionally post stuff on a secondary channel or something.As for video channels and books, what is good for you mainly depends on what level you are at. For example, the materials I practice chess with wouldn't help you very much and vice versa. A lot of people recommend Kingsscrusher's youtube channel. That may be worth looking into.Though to make serious progress, watching videos isn't good enough. I would recommend you focus on playing games over-the-board and join a local chess club. On January 22 2013 06:04 Xarayezona wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to link us to the analysis of the actual game that you put up? I'd like to see for myself exactly what happened.



Here you go:

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=438530811



Though I don't have a premium membership on chess.com and therefore don't know how long that game is gonna stay up on the site.

Also keep in mind that this was a bullet game and neither player had the time for deep analysis. In bullet I select my moves based on experience, intuition, and muscle memory. There is no time for calculations.





On January 22 2013 06:17 n0btozz wrote:

I am not as good in chess as you, probably because I quit sooner. I once was the youth champion of my country, and competed on the nordic championship against the likes of Magnus Carlsen and other good players. However, I quit at the age of 14-16 and took up other hobbies. I am mid masters protoss right now and I look at sc2 the exact same way I used to look at chess. I have both been coaching sc2, but way before that I have been teaching chess quite a lot. Having taught chess really really helped me as a sc2 coach. Here are some of the reasons why.



You have your openings, the only difference is, that in starcraft you don't know what opening your opponent is doing until in move 6 (or something like that). But the key in both games is to have an understanding of how to start the game the most efficient way, know a couple of openings by heart and be as efficient with your resources as possible (your moves and pieces in chess, minerals/gas and units/buildings in sc2). A sloppy opening is the doom of players in both games. A 1500 rated chess player (gold/plat level sc2 player) can easily play against a 1900 rated opponent (dia in sc2 terms) and beat him if his understanding of that single opening is much better. Good tactical players can falter against weaker players if their openings aren't up to par with the rest of their play. Same can be said about sc2, so in both games openings are really important.



Both games have mid games. Here the tactical geniuses get to shine in both games. It is in the mid-game that we most of the time get to see one player take advantage. In chess, one player can take the positional lead, having his pieces in stronger spots, holding better lines. In sc2 that relates to either putting on some aggression to get some lead, or holding off some aggression to take the lead, it can either be army wise or economical, but in the mid game we usually see one player pulling ahead of the other in both games. In the mid game we see the players utilize the foundation they had built in the early game to get an edge on the opponent. Very similar. Understanding your pieces/units is key in the mid game, knowing your limits and the strength of your pieces/units and how best to utilize them is what sets players apart along with general knowledge of the game.



Lategame/endgame: My favourite part of chess and probably where I shined by far most as a player. While my openings were sometimes sloppy, my late mid game/endgame saw me surpass many much better players at a very young age. The endgame is all about "understanding" in both chess and Sc2. Knowing how to utilize those few key units, how to win certain positions. While a lesser player get's a draw from some position, a better player can almost always force his way to victory with superior late game knowledge in chess. This is however not the case in sc2, this is where I feel the games do diverge a bit because sc2 doesn't seem to leave the chess equivalent of top of the action mid game. However it does happen, when players trade bases, and go from having 4 mining bases to possibly only having 1 mining base and scarce resources, that is when they need to utilize their units the same way you need to when playing the endgame in chess.



--



Now with all this said, all I wanted to say is that approaching the games the same way is smart. Spend time studying your opening, perfecting your understanding of it and counters to what the opponent does. Understand how that translates into the midgame, what openings it gives you when your opponent doesn't respond the correct way, and then learn how to finish an opponent off.



Love seeing a decent chess player on TL making a thread about this. For myself I can say the same as you, I have great passion for teaching and I have thought chess myself a bunch, and also done some sc2 coaching with good resaults, getting players to masters through having the right approach to the game. I am looking forward to reading the rest of your posts, that was my take on chess/sc2, very excited to see what you will do more.



---



Btw, nice move against Gyoi, don't know how neither of you saw e5, but it doesn't seem to matter, looks like you have the upper hand on him anyway afterwards?? Nice move I am not as good in chess as you, probably because I quit sooner. I once was the youth champion of my country, and competed on the nordic championship against the likes ofMagnus Carlsen and other good players. However, I quit at the age of 14-16 and took up other hobbies. I am mid masters protoss right now and I look at sc2 the exact same way I used to look at chess. I have both been coaching sc2, but way before that I have been teaching chess quite a lot. Having taught chess really really helped me as a sc2 coach. Here are some of the reasons why.You have your, the only difference is, that in starcraft you don't know what opening your opponent is doing until in move 6 (or something like that). But the key in both games is to have an understanding of how to start the game the most efficient way, know a couple of openings by heart and be as efficient with your resources as possible (your moves and pieces in chess, minerals/gas and units/buildings in sc2). A sloppy opening is the doom of players in both games. A 1500 rated chess player (gold/plat level sc2 player) can easily play against a 1900 rated opponent (dia in sc2 terms) and beat him if his understanding of that single opening is much better. Good tactical players can falter against weaker players if their openings aren't up to par with the rest of their play. Same can be said about sc2, so in both games openings are really important.Both games have. Here the tactical geniuses get to shine in both games. It is in the mid-game that we most of the time get to see one player take advantage. In chess, one player can take the positional lead, having his pieces in stronger spots, holding better lines. In sc2 that relates to either putting on some aggression to get some lead, or holding off some aggression to take the lead, it can either be army wise or economical, but in the mid game we usually see one player pulling ahead of the other in both games. In the mid game we see the players utilize the foundation they had built in the early game to get an edge on the opponent. Very similar. Understanding your pieces/units is key in the mid game, knowing your limits and the strength of your pieces/units and how best to utilize them is what sets players apart along with general knowledge of the game.My favourite part of chess and probably where I shined by far most as a player. While my openings were sometimes sloppy, my late mid game/endgame saw me surpass many much better players at a very young age. The endgame is all about "understanding" in both chess and Sc2. Knowing how to utilize those few key units, how to win certain positions. While a lesser player get's a draw from some position, a better player can almost always force his way to victory with superior late game knowledge in chess. This is however not the case in sc2, this is where I feel the games do diverge a bit because sc2 doesn't seem to leave the chess equivalent of top of the action mid game. However it does happen, when players trade bases, and go from having 4 mining bases to possibly only having 1 mining base and scarce resources, that is when they need to utilize their units the same way you need to when playing the endgame in chess.--Now with all this said, all I wanted to say is that approaching the games the same way is smart. Spend time studying your opening, perfecting your understanding of it and counters to what the opponent does. Understand how that translates into the midgame, what openings it gives you when your opponent doesn't respond the correct way, and then learn how to finish an opponent off.Love seeing a decent chess player on TL making a thread about this. For myself I can say the same as you, I have great passion for teaching and I have thought chess myself a bunch, and also done some sc2 coaching with good resaults, getting players to masters through having the right approach to the game. I am looking forward to reading the rest of your posts, that was my take on chess/sc2, very excited to see what you will do more.---Btw, nice move against Gyoi, don't know how neither of you saw e5, but it doesn't seem to matter, looks like you have the upper hand on him anyway afterwards?? Nice move





Thank you very much for your comments. Must have taken you a while to type that all up. Here are my thoughts:



1. Must have been great to play Magnus Carlsen at a young age, even though at the time you probably didn't know how strong he was going to become. Many years ago I played in the open of the Dortmund Grandmaster Tournament in Germany. It was great to see the world's best player up close. In 2008 I also went to one of the games of the Anand-Kramnik World Championship match in Bonn, Germany. It was awesome to be part of it, but unfortunately the game itself was a pretty boring draw.

2. What was your peak rating?

3. I'm not quite sure I agree with you on what you say about the importance of chess openings. Yes, I make sure that Pyre plays decent opening moves following general principles, but I don't think it makes sense to spend too much time on opening theory just yet. Once he has a solid 1500-1600 I'll start practicing specific openings with him, but until then it doesn't seem to be a good idea mainly for 2 reasons:

a) He needs to have a bit more game sense to understand why certain openings are good and what the ideas

behind them are

b) At his level, his opponents don't really know any opening theory either, and if your opponent doesn't follow along,

there is no point in memorizing move orders

It's like this. If Pyre was teaching someone to play SC2, it wouldn't make sense for him to start with specific build orders and timing attacks because those only make sense once you have a certain understanding of the game as a whole. And lower league SC2 player play too sloppily to make specific timings work anyway.

So while I agree with you that chess openings are important, I don't think Pyre is quite there just yet. After he solidifies his overall game a little bit, I'll introduce him to some of the major openings.

Final point on openings: The amount of theory he needs to know also depends on how sharp the opening is. A quiet opening such as the Queen's Gambit Declined requires far less knowledge of specific variations than say the Dragon variation of the Sicilian.

4. I agree with everything you say about the midgame. I would add that in chess there is the distinct possibility of a draw that doesn't really exist in SC2. Chess games can end in a draw if both sides don't make mistakes, but in SC2 even if both players play flawlessly, sheer luck for example can make all the difference





On January 22 2013 06:34 lolstarz wrote:

Wow, this is a very cool idea! Enjoyed the read. Now am thinking about finding a GM player to teach Go to.... Ideas ideas! Wow, this is a very cool idea! Enjoyed the read. Now am thinking about finding a GM player to teach Go to....Ideas ideas!



Thank you very much. I'll keep expanding this on a regular basis, probably once or twice a month.





Here you go:Though I don't have a premium membership on chess.com and therefore don't know how long that game is gonna stay up on the site.Also keep in mind that this was a bullet game and neither player had the time for deep analysis. In bullet I select my moves based on experience, intuition, and muscle memory. There is no time for calculations.Thank you very much for your comments. Must have taken you a while to type that all up. Here are my thoughts:Must have been great to play Magnus Carlsen at a young age, even though at the time you probably didn't know how strong he was going to become. Many years ago I played in the open of the Dortmund Grandmaster Tournament in Germany. It was great to see the world's best player up close. In 2008 I also went to one of the games of the Anand-Kramnik World Championship match in Bonn, Germany. It was awesome to be part of it, but unfortunately the game itself was a pretty boring draw.What was your peak rating?I'm not quite sure I agree with you on what you say about the importance of chess openings. Yes, I make sure that Pyre plays decent opening moves following general principles, but I don't think it makes sense to spend too much time on opening theory just yet. Once he has a solid 1500-1600 I'll start practicing specific openings with him, but until then it doesn't seem to be a good idea mainly for 2 reasons:a) He needs to have a bit more game sense to understand why certain openings are good and what the ideasbehind them areb) At his level, his opponents don't really know any opening theory either, and if your opponent doesn't follow along,there is no point in memorizing move ordersIt's like this. If Pyre was teaching someone to play SC2, it wouldn't make sense for him to start with specific build orders and timing attacks because those only make sense once you have a certain understanding of the game as a whole. And lower league SC2 player play too sloppily to make specific timings work anyway.So while I agree with you that chess openings are important, I don't think Pyre is quite there just yet. After he solidifies his overall game a little bit, I'll introduce him to some of the major openings.Final point on openings: The amount of theory he needs to know also depends on how sharp the opening is. A quiet opening such as the Queen's Gambit Declined requires far less knowledge of specific variations than say the Dragon variation of the Sicilian.I agree with everything you say about the midgame. I would add that in chess there is the distinct possibility of a draw that doesn't really exist in SC2. Chess games can end in a draw if both sides don't make mistakes, but in SC2 even if both players play flawlessly, sheer luck for example can make all the differenceThank you very much. I'll keep expanding this on a regular basis, probably once or twice a month. On January 22 2013 07:08 ButtCraft wrote:

What's pyre's Elo?



He doesn't have an ELO rating yet, on chess.com his rating fluctuates between 1000 and 1400. Which is normal. My rating too fluctuates around 2100 give or take 100 points





He doesn't have an ELO rating yet, on chess.com his rating fluctuates between 1000 and 1400. Which is normal. My rating too fluctuates around 2100 give or take 100 points On January 22 2013 14:34 phiinix wrote:

not sure how much experience you have teaching other people chess to have an idea of how he's picking it up relatively, but it would have been interesting to coach someone who isn't great at sc2 (or even plays at all) to see how they compare



I agree with you. However I don't have time for - or any interest in - teaching anybody else on top of what I'm already doing. I also think that Pyre's general interest in and aptitude for chess is far more important than whether he's a SC2 player. So if someone else picked up chess faster or slower than Pyre, I don't think that's because Pyre happens to be an SC2 Grandmaster

I agree with you. However I don't have time for - or any interest in - teaching anybody else on top of what I'm already doing. I also think that Pyre's general interest in and aptitude for chess is far more important than whether he's a SC2 player. So if someone else picked up chess faster or slower than Pyre, I don't think that's because Pyre happens to be an SC2 Grandmaster Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster: http://revtiberius.blogspot.ca

RevTiberius Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 353 Posts Last Edited: 2013-01-23 17:29:48 #163 “Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster” articles were featured on djWHEAT’s “Inside the Game”. The segment starts at roughly 41:30.



http://www.twitch.tv/onemoregametv/b/359651488



I certainly didn’t expect that so many people would take an interest in these articles, but of course I’m delighted that the SC2 community seems to find this interesting.



I’d like to take this opportunity and comment on some of the things that were said on the show. I should clarify that I am blogging about teaching chess to an SC2 Grandmaster, but I do not necessarily believe that the two games can or should be compared in each and every aspect. On the contrary, the games are quite different, and only in a few areas are comparisons permissible.



@djWHEAT

Thanks for calling my articles “fascinating” and “fucking cool”. I appreciate the compliment. And you are right. SC2 is frequently compared to chess, and these – often erroneous – comparisons are one of the reasons why I decided to start this series.

I think you hit the nail on its head when you said that SC2 skills transfer to chess only to a very limited extent. However, the “meta-skills” (not sure if that’s a word) are most certainly transferable. To take Pyre’s example. His knowledge of SC2 build orders and strategies, his APM etc. are obviously useless in chess, but the same kind of skills he needed to become an SC2 GM in the first place (dedication, hard work, aptitude for strategy games etc.) will most certainly go a long way in helping him become a better chess player. The way I explain chess to him is also a bit different from how I'd explain it to a non-SC2 player (e.g. when I compare the typical Bishop sacrifice on h7 to a baneling bust)



@EG.Idra

I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 are real time vs. turn based and perfect vision vs. imperfect vision. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification:

In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you.

In chess, on the other hand, you have perfect vision of what your opponent is doing, but that does not mean you have perfect understanding of what he is up to. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.



This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.



@EG.Incontrol

I very much agree with EG.Incontrol’s statement that many of the strategic concepts in chess and SC2 are best suited for comparison.

For example when I teach Pyre that in chess when you are far ahead of your opponent, you can start trading inefficiently, he immediately understands because the same concept holds true in SC2 as well.

Or the reason why many double-pronged attacks work so well in SC2 is closely related to the ideas behind the “Principle of Two Weaknesses” in chess.



@Mainstream Media

I also agree that the mainstream media doesn’t do a good job in comparing SC2 to chess. But that’s just because most journalists simply don’t know anything about SC2, and only very little about chess.

I regularly read The Economist, and once in a while they have an article about e-Sports. To me it always seems as if these articles were written by people who regurgitate second and third hand knowledge of SC2, and not by people who really know what they are talking about. The mainstream media also does a poor job at covering chess. The number of simple factual errors in their reporting never stops to amaze me.

Last night, my recentarticles were featured on djWHEAT’s “Inside the Game”. The segment starts at roughly 41:30.I certainly didn’t expect that so many people would take an interest in these articles, but of course I’m delighted that the SC2 community seems to find this interesting.I’d like to take this opportunity and comment on some of the things that were said on the show. I should clarify that. On the contrary, the games are quite different, and only in a few areas are comparisons permissible.Thanks for calling my articlesand. I appreciate the compliment. And you are right. SC2 is frequently compared to chess, and these – often erroneous – comparisons are one of the reasons why I decided to start this series.I think you hit the nail on its head when you said that. However, the(not sure if that’s a word) are most certainly transferable. To take Pyre’s example. His knowledge of SC2 build orders and strategies, his APM etc. are obviously useless in chess, but the same kind of skills he needed to become an SC2 GM in the first place (dedication, hard work, aptitude for strategy games etc.) will most certainly go a long way in helping him become a better chess player. The way I explain chess to him is also a bit different from how I'd explain it to a non-SC2 player (e.g. when I compare the typical Bishop sacrifice on h7 to a baneling bust)I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 areand. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification:In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to beto figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you.In chess, on the other hand, you have, but that. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.I very much agree with EG.Incontrol’s statement thatFor example when I teach Pyre that in chess when you are far ahead of your opponent, you can start, he immediately understands because the same concept holds true in SC2 as well.Or the reason why manywork so well in SC2 is closely related to the ideas behind thein chess.@Mainstream MediaI also agree that the mainstream media doesn’t do a good job in comparing SC2 to chess. But that’s just because most journalists simply don’t know anything about SC2, and only very little about chess.I regularly read, and once in a while they have an article about e-Sports. To me it always seems as if these articles were written by people who regurgitate second and third hand knowledge of SC2, and not by people who really know what they are talking about. The mainstream media also does a poor job at covering chess. The number of simple factual errors in their reporting never stops to amaze me. Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster: http://revtiberius.blogspot.ca

RevTiberius Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 353 Posts Last Edited: 2013-03-18 20:13:52 #164 TEACHING CHESS TO AN SC2 GRANDMASTER:



Episode III: Keeping up with the Kardashians



When former World Chess Champion Boris Spassky was asked in an interview whether he preferred chess or sex, he famously replied “depends on the position”.







A few days ago I was checking some chess news websites, just minding my own business, when suddenly I saw something that almost made me choke on my coffee:







Kim Kardashian wants to learn chess. Have we really sunk this low? I guess she got interested in chess when she heard that mating is the objective of the game…



So now the question is: Can Pyre keep up with Kim Kardashian? Of course he can. It may or may not seem that way to him, but over the past month or so I have already seen him make significant progress. Some of his recent thoughts and analyses are evidence of a much better understanding of the game compared to, say, 4 weeks ago.



The ugly truth is that improvement in chess comes slower than improvement in SC2. I think Pyre once mentioned that he started in Gold League and became a Grandmaster within a few months. Unless you are a prodigy, making comparable improvements in chess takes much longer. One of the main reasons is I think mechanics. Even if you can’t play SC2 any “better”, you can always play “faster”. In chess, if you want to play BETTER, you need to play BETTER.



I think one of the reasons why chess is so fascinating to Pyre is that it must be so much easier for him to improve his chess compared to SC2. He already plays SC2 at a very high level, and for him it must be much harder to get the joy of getting better in SC2 compared to chess.

In my experience though I enjoy being good at a game very much, I enjoy getting better at a game even more.



Pyre recently already started showing initial success at offline/over-the-board tournaments. In my next article I’ll probably showcase one of this recent games to highlight some of his improvements.

And I’m gonna make sure he’ll always be better than Kim Kardashian…







Pattern-Recognition:

The ability to recognize recurring patterns is an important skill of strong chess players. A significant part of my decision making in a chess game is based on intuition and experience rather than calculation and analysis.



For example, in one of my recent games I reached the following position:







I had just played Rook f8-h8 to counter White’s lethal threat Queen e3-h6. Generally speaking my position is a mess, White has a very strong attack and his Knights have two excellent squares on f6 and g5. Whether White’s position is objectively winning is unclear, but from a practical point of view his position is much easier to play than mine.

Now White committed a terrible blunder and played King e1-e2??, undoubtedly to activate his rook on a1. However, after my devastating response Bishop b7-a6 check the game is quickly over because to counter the check White has to either sacrifice his Queen on d3, or move his back on to the 1st rank, which disconnects the rooks again, and after I take on h1 it’s checkmate.



A few days later, I reached the following position in another game:







My opponent’s position is clearly better than mine: he has launched a very strong attack against my King. His Bishops and his Queen are targeting my king side, I was already forced to weaken my pawn shield by playing Pawn g2-g3. Black has just played Pawn h7-h5 with the intention to play h5-h4 to undermine my pawn shield even further and to open the h-file for his Rook.

To counter these very serious threats I had just played Rook a1-c1 to open the c-file, maybe in conjunction with Knight c3-b5 in order to force Black’s Queen off the critical diagonal b8-h2.

MY opponent completely mishandled the position and a few moves later we reached the following position:







I don’t need to analyze this position in great detail for you. Suffice it to say that my next very strong move Bishop b2-a3 prompted Black to erroneously sacrifice his Queen to counter the check. Of course he lost the game soon after.



The lesson from these two examples is that I immediately recognized an important pattern in both positions: I had a fianchettoed queen side Bishop, and my opponent’s King was forced to come forward to e2 (or e7). In these kinds of position I know that the Bishop check on a3 or a6 is usually lethal or at least very unpleasant.



I know this pattern, and when it occurs, I don’t have to calculate much because I’m already familiar with the implications. This also means that I never “overlook” a move like Bishop a3: while beginners have to “find” moves like Bishop a3, I already “know” it’s there and can immediately analyze its consequences when this pattern occurs in a game.



This also distinguishes a chess Grandmaster from a strong amateur player like me. A Grandmaster’s knowledge of typical patters greatly exceeds mine, and in many positions a Grandmaster simply “knows” what to do while I have to think about it.







Retroanalysis:



I want to finish this article with a little retroanalytical problem. Typical chess problems ask you to solve questions like “Find Mate in 3” or “How does White win a piece?” Retroanalysis seeks to answer questions about previous events of a chess game. To solve such problems, you don’t have to be a strong player. Basic logic is all you need. For example, in the diagram below the question is



Has at any point a pawn been promoted in this game? The answer to this seemingly impossible question is surprisingly simple. I’ll post it here in my next article. Enjoy~







This is the third in a series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster

If you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find them here:



Episode I: The Task at Hand

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17433807



Episode II: Initial Observations and Insights

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17589873

When former World Chess Champion Boris Spassky was asked in an interview whether he preferred chess or sex, he famously replied “depends on the position”.A few days ago I was checking some chess news websites, just minding my own business, when suddenly I saw something that almost made me choke on my coffee:Kim Kardashian wants to learn chess. Have we really sunk this low? I guess she got interested in chess when she heard that mating is the objective of the game…So now the question is:Of course he can. It may or may not seem that way to him, but over the past month or so I have already seen him make significant progress. Some of his recent thoughts and analyses are evidence of a much better understanding of the game compared to, say, 4 weeks ago.. I think Pyre once mentioned that he started in Gold League and became a Grandmaster within a few months. Unless you are a prodigy, making comparable improvements in chess takes much longer. One of the main reasons is I think mechanics. Even if you can’t play SC2 any “better”, you can always play “faster”. In chess, if you want to play BETTER, you need to play BETTER.I think one of the reasons why chess is so fascinating to Pyre is that it must be so much easier for him to improve his chess compared to SC2. He already plays SC2 at a very high level, and for him it must be much harder to get the joy of getting better in SC2 compared to chess.In my experience though I enjoy being good at a game very much, I enjoy getting better at a game even more.Pyre recently already started showing initial success at offline/over-the-board tournaments. In my next article I’ll probably showcase one of this recent games to highlight some of his improvements.And I’m gonna make sure he’ll always be better than Kim Kardashian…The ability to recognize recurring patterns is an important skill of strong chess players. A significant part of my decision making in a chess game is based on intuition and experience rather than calculation and analysis.For example, in one of my recent games I reached the following position:I had just played Rook f8-h8 to counter White’s lethal threat Queen e3-h6. Generally speaking my position is a mess, White has a very strong attack and his Knights have two excellent squares on f6 and g5. Whether White’s position is objectively winning is unclear, but from a practical point of view his position is much easier to play than mine.Now White committed a terrible blunder and played King e1-e2??, undoubtedly to activate his rook on a1. However, after my devastating response Bishop b7-a6 check the game is quickly over because to counter the check White has to either sacrifice his Queen on d3, or move his back on to the 1st rank, which disconnects the rooks again, and after I take on h1 it’s checkmate.A few days later, I reached the following position in another game:My opponent’s position is clearly better than mine: he has launched a very strong attack against my King. His Bishops and his Queen are targeting my king side, I was already forced to weaken my pawn shield by playing Pawn g2-g3. Black has just played Pawn h7-h5 with the intention to play h5-h4 to undermine my pawn shield even further and to open the h-file for his Rook.To counter these very serious threats I had just played Rook a1-c1 to open the c-file, maybe in conjunction with Knight c3-b5 in order to force Black’s Queen off the critical diagonal b8-h2.MY opponent completely mishandled the position and a few moves later we reached the following position:I don’t need to analyze this position in great detail for you. Suffice it to say that my next very strong move Bishop b2-a3 prompted Black to erroneously sacrifice his Queen to counter the check. Of course he lost the game soon after.The lesson from these two examples is that I immediately recognized an important pattern in both positions: I had a fianchettoed queen side Bishop, and my opponent’s King was forced to come forward to e2 (or e7). In these kinds of position I know that the Bishop check on a3 or a6 is usually lethal or at least very unpleasant.I know this pattern, and when it occurs, I don’t have to calculate much because I’m already familiar with the implications. This also means that I never “overlook” a move like Bishop a3: while beginners have to “find” moves like Bishop a3, I already “know” it’s there and can immediately analyze its consequences when this pattern occurs in a game.This also distinguishes a chess Grandmaster from a strong amateur player like me. A Grandmaster’s knowledge of typical patters greatly exceeds mine, and in many positions a Grandmaster simply “knows” what to do while I have to think about it.I want to finish this article with a little retroanalytical problem. Typical chess problems ask you to solve questions like “Find Mate in 3” or “How does White win a piece?” Retroanalysis seeks to answer questions about previous events of a chess game. To solve such problems, you don’t have to be a strong player. Basic logic is all you need. For example, in the diagram below the question isThe answer to this seemingly impossible question is surprisingly simple. I’ll post it here in my next article. Enjoy~This is the third in a series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 GrandmasterIf you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find them here:Episode I: The Task at HandEpisode II: Initial Observations and Insights Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster: http://revtiberius.blogspot.ca

nucLeaRTV Profile Joined May 2011 Romania 781 Posts #165 I don't want to be a prick, but why is it called "teach chess to Pyre", because you mainly show us your games and analyze them. "Having your own haters means you are famous"

RevTiberius Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 353 Posts #166 On February 05 2013 00:20 nucLeaRTV wrote:

I don't want to be a prick, but why is it called "teach chess to Pyre", because you mainly show us your games and analyze them.



I don't want to be a prick either but you don't seem to be a very careful reader. I am mostly discussing the kind of material that Pyre (and other learners at his level) need to know, and illustrate it with examples from my own games.



I also wrote in "Episode III" that in my next article I would analyze one of Pyre's games, so in about 2 weeks you'll get what you're looking for. I don't want to be a prick either but you don't seem to be a very careful reader. I am mostly discussing the kind of material that Pyre (and other learners at his level) need to know, and illustrate it with examples from my own games.I also wrote in "Episode III" that in my next article I would analyze one of Pyre's games, so in about 2 weeks you'll get what you're looking for. Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster: http://revtiberius.blogspot.ca

jpw234 Profile Joined February 2013 United States 2 Posts #167



+ Show Spoiler + There has been a promotion. Given that white's e and g pawns haven't been moved, white's light-squared bishop couldn't have gotten out. Therefore the white light-squared bishop on the board used to be a pawn. Maybe not the most strategic decision to promote to a bishop, but there you go. The answer to the pawn promotion problem:

nucLeaRTV Profile Joined May 2011 Romania 781 Posts #168 I wanted to say "I don't want to sound like a prick", but if you want to be one, go ahead. "Having your own haters means you are famous"

RevTiberius Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 353 Posts Last Edited: 2013-02-19 18:11:39 #169 TEACHING CHESS TO AN SC2 GRANDMASTER:



Episode IV: Pyre Wins His First Trophy



It was only 2 months ago that I started teaching chess to SC2 Grandmaster Pyre. Therefore I was very surprised when he emailed me the following picture:







Pyre won his first trophy at a local high school chess event. Though I realized his talent very quickly, I did not expect him to score so well at over-the-board tournaments so soon. Of course most of the credit belongs to Pyre, but it is very gratifying to see that as his coach I seem to be doing something right, too.

I'd like to take this opportunity and take a closer look at the current state of Pyre's game:



Current State of Pyre's Game:



I regularly go through the games Pyre plays on chess.com to look for things that spark my interest. The following six positions I think exemplify Pyre’s recent progress very well, and also indicate where more work needs to be done. Pyre’s account on chess.com is 3hitu . What I find most significant about the following examples is that they show that Pyre has begun transitioning from simply making moves to formulating and executing plans. The very fact that he is already making short-term and long-term plans is significant progress indeed even if some of his plans are ill-advised or tactically flawed. . This kind of progress is far more important than fluctuations in his rating. I really don't care much whether Pyre's rating is 1100, 1200, 1400 or something like that. What I care about is improvements in his game.









In this position Pyre “saw” the hanging rook on d6 and took it. He won the game soon after, but 34. Qg8 checkmate would have been better instead. This is a good – though extreme – illustration of Emanuel Lasker’s recommendation “when you see a good move, look for a better one”. However, this is not just a problem for beginners. I’m very familiar with this kind of mistake, too. I frequently overlook excellent moves after finding a good one.

In this example, Pyre’s move didn’t change the outcome of the game. It’s really quite frustrating when it does.







This position is a good example of how Pyre’s ability to formulate and execute plans has increased since the beginning of the year. In this position, he is a pawn down, but has a very strong attack against Black’s king. Pyre played 20.Ng4 which is a move that I am certain he could not have made 2 months ago. The idea behind it is to distract the knight on f6, which is the only defender of h7, where Pyre is threatening mate. I was very pleased indeed when I saw him play 20.Ng4.







In this position, Pyre’s bishop is under attack, and I’m sure that until recently he would have simply retreated it to maybe d4 or f6. In the game however, Pyre played 23.Qh6, threatening mate on c1. An interesting choice I find. I’m not sure if he simply overlooked 23. … Qxh2 or whether he didn’t like the response 24.Qh3. In any case, I was impressed by the fact the he put some thinking into the position and came up with something other than an obvious move with the bishop.







In this position, Pyre got really lucky. Black had sacrificed a knight on g4, and Pyre was imprudent enough to take it. Note to Pyre: In these kinds of positions taking a knight on g4 is almost never a good idea if Black gets an open h-file in return. Mate is usually inevitable. In this case, too. However, Black was too impatient and went for 10. … Qh2+, a useless check that allowed Pyre’s king to slip away via f2. Had Black played 10. … g3! first to block White’s escape route, there’s nothing Pyre could have done to prevent mate on h1. As the great Bobby Fischer said: “Patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check”.







In this position, Pyre has a nice bishop/queen battery on the diagonal b1-h7, and he eventually managed to win the game through an attack on the kingside. This position, however, is significant because both Pyre and his opponent overlooked a great defensive resource for Black. Pyre now played 11.e5, which is the right idea at the wrong time, because it allows Black to play 11. … Nb4!, forking Pyre’s queen and bishop and thereby trading Pyre’s important bishop on d3. So when you line up your pieces on that diagonal, it is important to make a prophylactic move like a3 first to make sure no knight shows up on b4.







This position is from the same game. Pyre now chose to play 19.Kh1 in order to play Ng1 to open the d1-h5 diagonal for the queen, a plan that ultimately resulted in Black’s resignation. Of course this was not a forced sequence. Black could have done several things to prevent this, and Pyre could have found a better way to activate his queen – one without moving the knight in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, I was very pleased when I saw this maneuver because it shows that Pyre is really developing the skills to formulate sensible plans. This is because while one should always look for the best move, from a practical point of view it is equally if not more important to have a realizable plan even if that includes moves that are - objectively speaking - not the best









Bad Manner



Thankfully there is not nearly as much BM in online chess as there is in SC2. However, I noticed there’s a special kind of BM that I frequently encounter when I play someone who's much weaker than me.

Here are a few examples:















I'd be curious to know how much BM other chess players have to put up with. In top level chess tournaments rules around BM are very strict and players forfeit their games if they even just refuse to shake hands. This is a clip of the famous handshake incident at the Corus 2008 grandmaster tournament between Nigel Short and Ivan Cheparinov



It was only 2 months ago that I started teaching chess to SC2 Grandmaster Pyre. Therefore I was very surprised when he emailed me the following picture:Pyre won his first trophy at a local high school chess event. Though I realized his talent very quickly, I did not expect him to score so well at over-the-board tournaments so soon.I'd like to take this opportunity and take a closer look at the current state of Pyre's game:I regularly go through the games Pyre plays on chess.com to look for things that spark my interest. The following six positions I think exemplify Pyre’s recent progress very well, and also indicate where more work needs to be done. Pyre’s account on chess.com is. What I find most significant about the following examples is that they show that. The very fact that he is already making short-term and long-term plans is significant progress indeed even if some of his plans are ill-advised or tactically flawed. . This kind of progress is far more important than fluctuations in his rating. I really don't care much whether Pyre's rating is 1100, 1200, 1400 or something like that. What I care about is improvements in his game.In this position Pyre “saw” the hanging rook on d6 and took it. He won the game soon after, but 34. Qg8 checkmate would have been better instead. This is a good – though extreme – illustration of. However, this is not just a problem for beginners. I’m very familiar with this kind of mistake, too. I frequently overlook excellent moves after finding a good one.In this example, Pyre’s move didn’t change the outcome of the game. It’s really quite frustrating when it does.This position is a good example of how Pyre’s ability to formulate and execute plans has increased since the beginning of the year. In this position, he is a pawn down, but has a very strong attack against Black’s king. Pyre played 20.Ng4 which is a move that I am certain he could not have made 2 months ago. The idea behind it is to distract the knight on f6, which is the only defender of h7, where Pyre is threatening mate. I was very pleased indeed when I saw him play 20.Ng4.In this position, Pyre’s bishop is under attack, and I’m sure that until recently he would have simply retreated it to maybe d4 or f6. In the game however, Pyre played 23.Qh6, threatening mate on c1. An interesting choice I find. I’m not sure if he simply overlooked 23. … Qxh2 or whether he didn’t like the response 24.Qh3. In any case, I was impressed by the fact the he put some thinking into the position and came up with something other than an obvious move with the bishop.In this position, Pyre got really lucky. Black had sacrificed a knight on g4, and Pyre was imprudent enough to take it.In these kinds of positions taking a knight on g4 is almost never a good idea if Black gets an open h-file in return. Mate is usually inevitable. In this case, too. However, Black was too impatient and went for 10. … Qh2+, a useless check that allowed Pyre’s king to slip away via f2. Had Black played 10. … g3! first to block White’s escape route, there’s nothing Pyre could have done to prevent mate on h1.In this position, Pyre has a nice bishop/queen battery on the diagonal b1-h7, and he eventually managed to win the game through an attack on the kingside. This position, however, is significant because both Pyre and his opponent overlooked a great defensive resource for Black. Pyre now played 11.e5, which is the right idea at the wrong time, because it allows Black to play 11. … Nb4!, forking Pyre’s queen and bishop and thereby trading Pyre’s important bishop on d3. So when you line up your pieces on that diagonal, it is important to make a prophylactic move like a3 first to make sure no knight shows up on b4.This position is from the same game. Pyre now chose to play 19.Kh1 in order to play Ng1 to open the d1-h5 diagonal for the queen, a plan that ultimately resulted in Black’s resignation. Of course this was not a forced sequence. Black could have done several things to prevent this, and Pyre could have found a better way to activate his queen – one without moving the knight in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, I was very pleased when I saw this maneuver because it shows that Pyre is really developing the skills to formulate sensible plans.Thankfully there is not nearly as much BM in online chess as there is in SC2. However, I noticed there’s a special kind of BM that I frequently encounter when I play someone who's much weaker than me.Here are a few examples:I'd be curious to know how much BM other chess players have to put up with. In top level chess tournaments rules around BM are very strict and players forfeit their games if they even just refuse to shake hands. This is a clip of the famous handshake incident at the Corus 2008 grandmaster tournament between Nigel Short and Ivan Cheparinov



In my next article in this series I'll take a look at typical salaries of SC2 professionals compared to chess grandmasters. Any SC2 GMs willing to offer their thoughts on this are welcome to contact me .

I will also talk a little bit more about the theory behind formulating plans in any given position



This is the fourth in a series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster. If you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find them here:



http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=12559188 This is the fourth in a series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster. If you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find them here: Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster: http://revtiberius.blogspot.ca

aintthatfunny Profile Joined April 2012 193 Posts Last Edited: 2013-02-18 21:45:52 #170 Love the posts! I promise I'll behave.

Musicus Profile Joined August 2011 Germany 23384 Posts #171 Really cool. love following this. Now I am really bad at chess and never played it seriously or even in the correct way I guess. What would you (ar any chess player) recommend if I wanted to get started with chess. Best place to start online? Maru and Serral are probably top 5.

pedrlz Profile Joined September 2012 Brazil 2217 Posts Last Edited: 2013-02-19 00:19:57 #172 this is amazing



never stop please.



Edit: Also, I'm learning a lot with your analyses.

Biff The Understudy Profile Blog Joined February 2008 France 6843 Posts Last Edited: 2013-03-04 11:58:05 #173 On January 24 2013 01:53 RevTiberius wrote:



@EG.Idra

I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 are real time vs. turn based and perfect vision vs. imperfect vision. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification:

In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you.

In chess, on the other hand, you have perfect vision of what your opponent is doing, but that does not mean you have perfect understanding of what he is up to. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.



This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.





This is very interesting.



I remember Peter Svidler being asked in an interview if chess made him more clever in real life. Most chess player (*cough* Kasparov *cough*) love to explain how life is like a big chess game (and therefore why they should be so badass at it). Svidler, who is really humble and really smart, answered that life is a game of imperfect and uncomplete information , and therefore that the diamond solid logic that one used in chess couldn't be applied in eveyday's life whatsoever.



You mentionned Sherlock Holmes, and that's interesting, because Sherlock Holmes lives in a life of complete and perfect information , which is why it's borderline fantastic (I talk of Conan Doyle's novels, not the atrocious recent movies). "This and this and this means that and that" and everything is in front of your eyes if you are skilled enough to really look. Of course real life is not like that. Nobody could be Sherlock Holmes, not because nobody is smart enough, but because elements of information in life are not univocal and don't have a one string of causality leading at all time to one conclusion.



Starcraft is like real life. You do not have all the informations. It's not even only the fog of war. You do not know the millimetric details of where your units stand and how they are going to fire and you do not know exactly all your timings and exactly what is happening where and how. Just because the game is way too complex.



Let's say that in chess, a pawn is on e4. Well, that's it. It controls d5 and f5 and it can move to e5. Period. The information you get from the board is complete, total, and perfect. Then, you go make the deductions and follow long lines and try to understand what this information means (maybe it means it's time to resign ) Just like Sherlock Holmes. You have all the elements, make the best of it.



In Starcraft, you don't even know where units are standing at all time. You have to assess uncomplete information and deal with the uncompletness. Ok, your opponent probably has 6 zergling and they probably are running around his base and his timing for roaches should be in a minute or so. And your marines, you don't even know either where exactly they are standing unless you stare at them at all time, but hey, you also have to manage your mules, your medivac drop and your supply depots... It's much more like real life where the causality is not always perfectly established between things and event, where you have to judge, and rely a lot on your sheer intuition to really know what is going on. Even Flash, who really was the Carlsen of BW, never played twice the same build. The timings were always a tiny bit different, his unit behaved a little bit differently too. Slight details you don't even notice about, he doesn't even notice about but they are there and will make a difference.





Sorry for the novel, but being a former BW player and a chess maniac, I thought a lot about it. My conclusion ended up being that chess was so much better than Starcraft (no offense, SC is an amazing game and I love it), because this little straightforward material gave a depth that no RTS will ever have. Starcraft is a beautiful, amazing, enjoyable pond. Chess is the ocean.



Good to agree with Idra once in my life. He is a smart kid I believe, even though I never liked his personality. This is very interesting.I remember Peter Svidler being asked in an interview if chess made him more clever in real life. Most chess player (*cough* Kasparov *cough*) love to explain how life is like a big chess game (and therefore why they should be so badass at it). Svidler, who is really humble and really smart, answered that life is a game of, and therefore that the diamond solid logic that one used in chess couldn't be applied in eveyday's life whatsoever.You mentionned Sherlock Holmes, and that's interesting, because, which is why it's borderline fantastic (I talk of Conan Doyle's novels, not the atrocious recent movies). "This and this and this means that and that" and everything is in front of your eyes if you are skilled enough to really look. Of course real life is not like that. Nobody could be Sherlock Holmes, not because nobody is smart enough, but becauseStarcraft is like real life. You do not have all the informations. It's not even only the fog of war. You do not know the millimetric details of where your units stand and how they are going to fire and you do not know exactly all your timings and exactly what is happening where and how. Just because the game is way too complex.Let's say that in chess, a pawn is on e4. Well, that's it. It controls d5 and f5 and it can move to e5. Period. The information you get from the board is complete, total, and perfect. Then, you go make the deductions and follow long lines and try to understand what this information means (maybe it means it's time to resign) Just like Sherlock Holmes. You have all the elements, make the best of it.In Starcraft, you don't even know where units are standing at all time. You have to assess uncomplete information and deal with the uncompletness. Ok, your opponent probably has 6 zergling and they probably are running around his base and his timing for roaches should be in a minute or so. And your marines, you don't even know either where exactly they are standing unless you stare at them at all time, but hey, you also have to manage your mules, your medivac drop and your supply depots... It's much more like real life where the causality is not always perfectly established between things and event, where you have to judge, and rely a lot on your sheer intuition to really know what is going on. Even Flash, who really was the Carlsen of BW, never played twice the same build. The timings were always a tiny bit different, his unit behaved a little bit differently too. Slight details you don't even notice about, he doesn't even notice about but they are there and will make a difference.Sorry for the novel, but being a former BW player and a chess maniac, I thought a lot about it. My conclusion ended up being that chess was so much better than Starcraft (no offense, SC is an amazing game and I love it), because this little straightforward material gave a depth that no RTS will ever have. Starcraft is a beautiful, amazing, enjoyable pond. Chess is the ocean.Good to agree with Idra once in my life. He is a smart kid I believe, even though I never liked his personality. Beware of the dreams of others, because if you are caught in their dream, you are screwed. Dreams are terrifying will to power. ~Gilles Deleuze

RevTiberius Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 353 Posts Last Edited: 2013-03-18 22:02:17 #174 TEACHING CHESS TO AN SC2 GRANDMASTER:



Episode V: How much money does a chess grandmaster make?



Before I give you guys an update on Pyre’s progress, I want to take a look at salary levels in chess compared to SC2.



First a quick comparison of my chess earnings and Pyre’s SC2 income. Pyre was at some point ranked #1 on the North American grandmaster ladder. I used to be a 2200 ELO chess player. This means that relatively speaking Pyre is much better at SC2 than I am at chess.



I used to play chess semi-competitively for about 10 years until I stopped when I went to university. In those 10 years, I won about $2,500 in prizes. Mostly cash prizes at open tournaments, rapid, blitz or bughouse tournaments. But also many (worthless) chess books, and a digital chess clock. Not bad for a kid in high school, but of course not nearly enough to consider myself a chess “professional”. In fact I am glad that it was always clear to me that my chess wasn’t nearly good enough to pursue a “professional” career.



Pyre has made about $1,000 in SC2 so far. Approximately $800 in prizes (local LANs and WCS) and $200 from coaching. Considering that SC2 only came out in mid-2010, he’s made his money a lot quicker.



Now lets take a look at what’s happening at the very top. The following two screenshots are from SC2earnings.com. I’m sure the numbers are inaccurate but they should still serve as a rough indication of where these people stand financially. According to the site, the figures are the combined earnings of the players from 2010-2013. Click on the images to enlarge.











It is clear that a handful of Korean pro gamers is doing very well. At the same time though, the difference between Korea and North America is quite significant. I think there are a lot of people in the community who will disagree with me here, but I think that in order to consider yourself a “professional” SC2 (or chess for that matter) player, you need to a) play SC2 full-time, and b) make enough money doing it to support yourself financially. So if for example someone makes $12,000/year playing SC2 but still lives at home with his parents, I wouldn’t consider that person a “professional” SC2 player, even though $12,000 is certainly quite a bit of money.



Chess professionals also complain that their sport is underfunded, and FIDE, the world chess federation, is certainly not doing a great job at attracting sponsors.



In her excellent article “Making Money in Chess”, Russian Grandmaster Natalia Pogonina gives the following ballpark figures for chess grandmasters’ earnings:



Global Top 3: >$1 million / year

Global Top 10: > $200,000 / year

Global Top 50: > $100,000 / year

Global Top 100: ~ $50,000 - $70,000 / year



http://pogonina.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=579&Itemid=1&lang=english

(The article is a good read, and many observations apply to professional SC2 as well)



This of course also varies by year because the prize funds available to top players very much depend on the tournament schedule. For example, the prize fund at the 2012 world championship match between Viswanathan Anand and Boris Gelfand (one of the weakest matches in recent history) was $2.55 million, shared something like 65%-35% between winner and loser.

Earlier this week, the FIDE candidates tournament kicked off in London to determine a challenger for Viswanathan Anand for the 2013 World Championship later this year. The candidates tournament is an 8 player double round robin tournament with a total prize fund of 510,000 Euro, with 115,000 Euro for first place (and much more at the coming world championship match) and 21,000 Euro for last place.





For winning the World Blitz Championship (a 2-day event), Alexander Grischuk received $40,000.



So at the highest level, chess players make good money. It’s not so easy when you aren’t part of the global top 50 or so. Grandmasters who have to travel the world to play in open tournaments – because they don’t get invited to the prestigious round robin tourneys – have a hard time supporting a family.



The Gibraltar Chess Open, one of the largest chess opens in the world, awards the following prizes:

http://www.gibraltarchesscongress.com/prizes.htm



This, however, is an exception and most open tournaments offer far less money to the winner. Therefore it isn’t surprising that many chess GMs are forced out of their careers sooner or later.

There have been many (mostly second-rate) chess grandmasters over the years who quit their professional chess careers or abandoned the game altogether in favor of other more financially secure activities. Most recently, poker has attracted the attention of quite a few chess GMs, but there are other examples as well:







After several years as one of Western Europe’s strongest chess players, German GM Dr. Helmut Pfleger stopped playing competitive chess in the 1980s to pursue his medical career. The funny thing about Dr. Pfleger (whom I lost to in a simultan exhibition many years ago) is that he looks very much like my dad, dresses like my dad, shares almost the same birthday as my dad, and has the same medical degree.

Currently, British GM “Lucky” Luke McShane (just over 2700 ELO) works as a foreign exchange trader in London and plays chess tournaments only when time allows. They call him “Lucky” Luke because in his career he’s had many important games where his opponents overlooked simple wins.







Current State of Pyre’s Game:



Earlier this week Pyre managed to get a 1500 rating on chess.com for the first time! He started playing chess seriously only in January, so this is clearly a pretty impressive result indeed. Congrats, Pyre! And again I must say I’m very satisfied that as his coach I seem to be doing a few things right, too. He’s now set his sights on 1700, and as I argued in one of my previous articles, this is where the real work begins. Since the beginning of the year, Pyre has learned the basics of chess strategy, and he started ridding his game of some fundamental tactical errors. Now we can actually start playing some “real” chess, which is something I am very much looking forward to. In particular, we will be looking at some positional games by Capablanca, Karpov, Steinitz and Lasker.



We’ve also started looking at pawn endings. Knowing just a few principles about basic pawn endings is a good way to noticeably improve one's results. In his seminal work “Beyond Good and Evil” Friedrich Nietzsche warned us that “when you gaze into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you”. I’m always reminded of this when I study pawn endings. Complex pawn endings are incredibly difficult and very often when I sit down to analyze them I realize that the more I look into them, the less certain I become about my judgment until at the very end I seem to doubt even my most basic conclusions. I’ll most certainly devote a future article to pawn endings.





Scene from the 2008 World Championship between Vladimir Kramnik and Viswanathan Anand



Here are a few positions from Pyre’s recent games that allow some interesting observations:



The avid reader of this blog will remember that Pyre's account on chess.com is 3hitu



I noticed that sometimes Pyre is shell-shocked and throws away games when things don’t go as planned and the opponent suddenly plays some tactical shocker. For example:







In position 1, Black has just captured a knight on g3. Pyre probably thought that the knight was protected, but realized too late that due to the pin and Black’s bishop on c5 the pawn on f2 can’t recapture on g3. Therefore, Pyre resigned, probably frustrated over this “blunder”. However, he overlooked that White can simply play d3-d4. This breaks the pin and attacks the bishop on c5 so that White is going to get the piece back.

In position 2, Black has just played Nc2, and at first glance it appears as if White’s going to lose an exchange. Pyre seemed to think so too because he lost his head and took on a7 in desperate search for some sort of compensation. However, he could have easily salvaged the situation by playing Nd4 instead, forking Black’s queen and knight, thereby forcing the exchange of the two knights. This would have allowed Pyre to continue the game. Up to this point he’d held his ground against a much stronger opponent pretty well.

The lesson from these two examples is that one shouldn’t give up too easily when something unexpected happens, for example overlooking some sort of tactical threat. It’s tempting to just give in to shock and frustration and simply resign the game, but with a cool head it is sometimes possible to save seemingly lost positions.







In this position we have a pawn race on our hands. Pyre’s problem is that White’s pawn is one tempo ahead. In this position Pyre played the very dangerous move Kd5 to support the advance of his pawn. It’s the right idea, however, unless it is absolutely necessary (and here it is not) one should NEVER put one’s king on a square that allows the opponent to promote a pawn with check. It didn’t matter in this particular case, but it is advisable to avoid this risk altogether. In this position for example by playing Kc5-d4 etc.







This is one of my favorite games of Pyre so far. In position 1, he’s clearly lost. There’s nothing he can do to stop Black’s distant passed pawns on the queenside. However, in this position Pyre tried a final trick and played Nf6!, inviting Black to take the knight. If Black simply ignores the knight on f6 and plays a5-a4-a3 etc., Pyre’s position is hopeless. However, Black took the knight and in doing so gave Pyre two dangerous passed pawns. A few moves later they reached Position 2 which was Black’s last chance to draw the game. After … Ng4+! Pyre played Kh8, threatening g7+. Black found the only move … Nf7+!, but after Pyre’s response Kh7 he played … d2?? and resigned after g7+. If Black plays the knight back to g5 with check instead, he’d draw by perpetual check because White is forced to move his King between h7 and h7. If White takes the knight on f7, his pawns are blocked and Black can promote his d-pawn. If White plays Kh6 in response to Nf7+, Black wins a tempo to play d2 because g7+ is no longer a threat.

Obviously both players didn’t fully understand this position, but nevertheless Pyre’s move Nf6! was very clever and for that move alone I think he deserved to win the game. I was very impressed when I saw this game.



And one example from my own games:







This probably won’t come as a surprise to a StarCraft 2 audience, but in chess it is typically favorable to have the initiative. In many cases, it is even recommended to sacrifice material in order to (re)-gain it. As an illustration look at position 1 below: My position is clearly worse. I’m a pawn down, my queenside is falling apart, and I’m not sure how much longer I can hold on to the d2-pawn. On the other hand, the position of Black’s king has been compromised, and my knight would be very strong on f5 indeed.

Therefore, instead of defending a hopeless position, I decided to launch a counter-attack and much to my surprise after moves like Nh4 and Qg4+ we reached Position 2 rather quickly, with Black’s king spectacularly mated in the middle of the board.







In all seriousness though, teaching chess to Pyre has clearly shown me how lacking my chess has become over the years . I know I'm still a pretty good player, but not being as good as I once was is pretty frustrating. I’m not sure if I’ll ever achieve it, but I would like to take a shot at 2300 ELO at some point. At the very least though, teaching chess to Pyre has rekindled my interest in the game, and I haven't felt this excited about chess in a long time.



This is the fifth in an ongoing series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster. If you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find the links here:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=12559188



This series was also discussed on djWHEAT 's "Inside the Game". The segment starts at 41:30

http://www.twitch.tv/onemoregametv/b/359651488 Before I give you guys an update on Pyre’s progress, I want to take a look at salary levels in chess compared to SC2.First a quick comparison of my chess earnings and Pyre’s SC2 income. Pyre was at some point ranked #1 on the North American grandmaster ladder. I used to be a 2200 ELO chess player. This means thatI used to play chess semi-competitively for about 10 years until I stopped when I went to university. In those 10 years, I won about $2,500 in prizes. Mostly cash prizes at open tournaments, rapid, blitz or bughouse tournaments. But also many (worthless) chess books, and a digital chess clock. Not bad for a kid in high school, but of course not nearly enough to consider myself a chess “professional”. In fact I am glad that it was always clear to me that my chess wasn’t nearly good enough to pursue a “professional” career.Pyre has made about $1,000 in SC2 so far. Approximately $800 in prizes (local LANs and WCS) and $200 from coaching. Considering that SC2 only came out in mid-2010, he’s made his money a lot quicker.Now lets take a look at what’s happening at the very top. The following two screenshots are from SC2earnings.com. I’m sure the numbers are inaccurate but they should still serve as a rough indication of where these people stand financially. According to the site, the figures are the combined earnings of the players from 2010-2013. Click on the images to enlarge.It is clear that a handful of Korean pro gamers is doing very well. At the same time though, the difference between Korea and North America is quite significant.. So if for example someone makes $12,000/year playing SC2 but still lives at home with his parents, I wouldn’t consider that person a “professional” SC2 player, even though $12,000 is certainly quite a bit of money.Chess professionals also complain that their sport is underfunded, and FIDE, the world chess federation, is certainly not doing a great job at attracting sponsors.In her excellent article “Making Money in Chess”, Russian Grandmaster Natalia Pogonina gives the following ballpark figures for chess grandmasters’ earnings:(The article is a good read, and many observations apply to professional SC2 as well)This of course also varies by year because the prize funds available to top players very much depend on the tournament schedule. For example, the prize fund at thebetween Viswanathan Anand and Boris Gelfand (one of the weakest matches in recent history) was, shared something like 65%-35% between winner and loser.Earlier this week, the FIDE candidates tournament kicked off in London to determine a challenger for Viswanathan Anand for the 2013 World Championship later this year. The candidates tournament is an 8 player double round robin tournament with a total prize fund of 510,000 Euro, with 115,000 Euro for first place (and much more at the coming world championship match) and 21,000 Euro for last place.For winning the World Blitz Championship (a 2-day event), Alexander Grischuk received $40,000.So at the highest level, chess players make good money. It’s not so easy when you aren’t part of the global top 50 or so. Grandmasters who have to travel the world to play in open tournaments – because they don’t get invited to the prestigious round robin tourneys – have a hard time supporting a family.The Gibraltar Chess Open, one of the largest chess opens in the world, awards the following prizes:This, however, is an exception and most open tournaments offer far less money to the winner. Therefore it isn’t surprising that many chess GMs are forced out of their careers sooner or later.There have been many (mostly second-rate) chess grandmasters over the years who quit their professional chess careers or abandoned the game altogether in favor of other more financially secure activities. Most recently, poker has attracted the attention of quite a few chess GMs, but there are other examples as well:After several years as one of Western Europe’s strongest chess players, German GM Dr. Helmut Pfleger stopped playing competitive chess in the 1980s to pursue his medical career. The funny thing about Dr. Pfleger (whom I lost to in a simultan exhibition many years ago) is that he looks very much like my dad, dresses like my dad, shares almost the same birthday as my dad, and has the same medical degree.Currently, British GM “Lucky” Luke McShane (just over 2700 ELO) works as a foreign exchange trader in London and plays chess tournaments only when time allows. They call him “Lucky” Luke because in his career he’s had many important games where his opponents overlooked simple wins.And again I must say I’m very satisfied that as his coach I seem to be doing a few things right, too. He’s now set his sights on 1700, and as I argued in one of my previous articles, this is where the real work begins. Since the beginning of the year, Pyre has learned the basics of chess strategy, and he started ridding his game of some fundamental tactical errors. Now we can actually start playing some “real” chess, which is something I am very much looking forward to. In particular, we will be looking at some positional games by Capablanca, Karpov, Steinitz and Lasker.We’ve also started looking at pawn endings. Knowing just a few principles about basic pawn endings is a good way to noticeably improve one's results. In his seminal work “Beyond Good and Evil”warned us that. I’m always reminded of this when I study pawn endings. Complex pawn endings are incredibly difficult and very often when I sit down to analyze them I realize that the more I look into them, the less certain I become about my judgment until at the very end I seem to doubt even my most basic conclusions. I’ll most certainly devote a future article to pawn endings.Scene from the 2008 World Championship between Vladimir Kramnik and Viswanathan AnandThe avid reader of this blog will remember that Pyre's account on chess.com is 3hituI noticed that sometimes Pyre is shell-shocked and throws away games when things don’t go as planned and the opponent suddenly plays some tactical shocker. For example:In position 1, Black has just captured a knight on g3. Pyre probably thought that the knight was protected, but realized too late that due to the pin and Black’s bishop on c5 the pawn on f2 can’t recapture on g3. Therefore, Pyre resigned, probably frustrated over this “blunder”. However, he overlooked that White can simply play d3-d4. This breaks the pin and attacks the bishop on c5 so that White is going to get the piece back.In position 2, Black has just played Nc2, and at first glance it appears as if White’s going to lose an exchange. Pyre seemed to think so too because he lost his head and took on a7 in desperate search for some sort of compensation. However, he could have easily salvaged the situation by playing Nd4 instead, forking Black’s queen and knight, thereby forcing the exchange of the two knights. This would have allowed Pyre to continue the game. Up to this point he’d held his ground against a much stronger opponent pretty well.The lesson from these two examples is that one shouldn’t give up too easily when something unexpected happens, for example overlooking some sort of tactical threat. It’s tempting to just give in to shock and frustration and simply resign the game, but with a cool head it is sometimes possible to save seemingly lost positions.In this position we have a pawn race on our hands. Pyre’s problem is that White’s pawn is one tempo ahead. In this position Pyre played the very dangerous move Kd5 to support the advance of his pawn. It’s the right idea, however, unless it is absolutely necessary (and here it is not) one should NEVER put one’s king on a square that allows the opponent to promote a pawn with check. It didn’t matter in this particular case, but it is advisable to avoid this risk altogether. In this position for example by playing Kc5-d4 etc.. In position 1, he’s clearly lost. There’s nothing he can do to stop Black’s distant passed pawns on the queenside. However, in this position Pyre tried a final trick and played Nf6!, inviting Black to take the knight. If Black simply ignores the knight on f6 and plays a5-a4-a3 etc., Pyre’s position is hopeless. However, Black took the knight and in doing so gave Pyre two dangerous passed pawns. A few moves later they reached Position 2 which was Black’s last chance to draw the game. After … Ng4+! Pyre played Kh8, threatening g7+. Black found the only move … Nf7+!, but after Pyre’s response Kh7 he played … d2?? and resigned after g7+. If Black plays the knight back to g5 with check instead, he’d draw by perpetual check because White is forced to move his King between h7 and h7. If White takes the knight on f7, his pawns are blocked and Black can promote his d-pawn. If White plays Kh6 in response to Nf7+, Black wins a tempo to play d2 because g7+ is no longer a threat.Obviously both players didn’t fully understand this position, but nevertheless Pyre’s move Nf6! was very clever and for that move alone I think he deserved to win the game.And one example from my own games:This probably won’t come as a surprise to a StarCraft 2 audience, but in chess it is typically favorable to have the initiative. In many cases, it is even recommended to sacrifice material in order to (re)-gain it. As an illustration look at position 1 below: My position is clearly worse. I’m a pawn down, my queenside is falling apart, and I’m not sure how much longer I can hold on to the d2-pawn. On the other hand, the position of Black’s king has been compromised, and my knight would be very strong on f5 indeed.Therefore, instead of defending a hopeless position, I decided to launch a counter-attack and much to my surprise after moves like Nh4 and Qg4+ we reached Position 2 rather quickly, with Black’s king spectacularly mated in the middle of the board.. I know I'm still a pretty good player, but not being as good as I once was is pretty frustrating. I’m not sure if I’ll ever achieve it, but I would like to take a shot at 2300 ELO at some point. At the very least though, teaching chess to Pyre has rekindled my interest in the game, and I haven't felt this excited about chess in a long time.This is the fifth in an ongoing series of articles about my efforts to teach chess to Pyre, a high-ranking North-American SC2 Grandmaster. If you missed the previous parts of this series, you can find the links here:This series was also discussed on's "". The segment starts at 41:30 Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster: http://revtiberius.blogspot.ca

RevTiberius Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 353 Posts #175 On March 04 2013 20:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 24 2013 01:53 RevTiberius wrote:



@EG.Idra

I agree very much with Idra’s comments that the two main differences between chess and SC2 are real time vs. turn based and perfect vision vs. imperfect vision. However, I think the second point is often misunderstood and needs clarification:

In SC2 the fog of war prevents you from seeing what your opponent is doing. But once you scout your opponent, it is usually easy to draw conclusions. For example, if you scan your opponent, and see a robotics bay that is being chrono-boosted, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what your opponent is going to throw at you.

In chess, on the other hand, you have perfect vision of what your opponent is doing, but that does not mean you have perfect understanding of what he is up to. It is quite common to misinterpret what you are seeing. Misreading my opponent’s intentions is the reason behind many of my losses in chess.



This is also the reason why I - despite only reaching Top 8 diamond league in SC2 - can perfectly appreciate Code S SC2 games. However, despite being a very strong chess player, I do not understand many grandmaster chess games simply because perfect vision of what’s going on is not enough.





This is very interesting.



I remember Peter Svidler being asked in an interview if chess made him more clever in real life. Most chess player (*cough* Kasparov *cough*) love to explain how life is like a big chess game (and therefore why they should be so badass at it). Svidler, who is really humble and really smart, answered that life is a game of imperfect and uncomplete information , and therefore that the diamond solid logic that one used in chess couldn't be applied in eveyday's life whatsoever.



You mentionned Sherlock Holmes, and that's interesting, because Sherlock Holmes lives in a life of complete and perfect information , which is why it's borderline fantastic (I talk of Conan Doyle's novels, not the atrocious recent movies). "This and this and this means that and that" and everything is in front of your eyes if you are skilled enough to really look. Of course real life is not like that. Nobody could be Sherlock Holmes, not because nobody is smart enough, but because elements of information in life are not univocal and don't have a one string of causality leading at all time to one conclusion.



Starcraft is like real life. You do not have all the informations. It's not even only the fog of war. You do not know the millimetric details of where your units stand and how they are going to fire and you do not know exactly all your timings and exactly what is happening where and how. Just because the game is way too complex.



Let's say that in chess, a pawn is on e4. Well, that's it. It controls d5 and f5 and it can move to e5. Period. The information you get from the board is complete, total, and perfect. Then, you go make the deductions and follow long lines and try to understand what this information means (maybe it means it's time to resign ) Just like Sherlock Holmes. You have all the elements, make the best of it.



In Starcraft, you don't even know where units are standing at all time. You have to assess uncomplete information and deal with the uncompletness. Ok, your opponent probably has 6 zergling and they probably are running around his base and his timing for roaches should be in a minute or so. And your marines, you don't even know either where exactly they are standing unless you stare at them at all time, but hey, you also have to manage your mules, your medivac drop and your supply depots... It's much more like real life where the causality is not always perfectly established between things and event, where you have to judge, and rely a lot on your sheer intuition to really know what is going on. Even Flash, who really was the Carlsen of BW, never played twice the same build. The timings were always a tiny bit different, his unit behaved a little bit differently too. Slight details you don't even notice about, he doesn't even notice about but they are there and will make a difference.





Sorry for the novel, but being a former BW player and a chess maniac, I thought a lot about it. My conclusion ended up being that chess was so much better than Starcraft (no offense, SC is an amazing game and I love it), because this little straightforward material gave a depth that no RTS will ever have. Starcraft is a beautiful, amazing, enjoyable pond. Chess is the ocean.



Good to agree with Idra once in my life. He is a smart kid I believe, even though I never liked his personality. This is very interesting.I remember Peter Svidler being asked in an interview if chess made him more clever in real life. Most chess player (*cough* Kasparov *cough*) love to explain how life is like a big chess game (and therefore why they should be so badass at it). Svidler, who is really humble and really smart, answered that life is a game of, and therefore that the diamond solid logic that one used in chess couldn't be applied in eveyday's life whatsoever.You mentionned Sherlock Holmes, and that's interesting, because, which is why it's borderline fantastic (I talk of Conan Doyle's novels, not the atrocious recent movies). "This and this and this means that and that" and everything is in front of your eyes if you are skilled enough to really look. Of course real life is not like that. Nobody could be Sherlock Holmes, not because nobody is smart enough, but becauseStarcraft is like real life. You do not have all the informations. It's not even only the fog of war. You do not know the millimetric details of where your units stand and how they are going to fire and you do not know exactly all your timings and exactly what is happening where and how. Just because the game is way too complex.Let's say that in chess, a pawn is on e4. Well, that's it. It controls d5 and f5 and it can move to e5. Period. The information you get from the board is complete, total, and perfect. Then, you go make the deductions and follow long lines and try to understand what this information means (maybe it means it's time to resign) Just like Sherlock Holmes. You have all the elements, make the best of it.In Starcraft, you don't even know where units are standing at all time. You have to assess uncomplete information and deal with the uncompletness. Ok, your opponent probably has 6 zergling and they probably are running around his base and his timing for roaches should be in a minute or so. And your marines, you don't even know either where exactly they are standing unless you stare at them at all time, but hey, you also have to manage your mules, your medivac drop and your supply depots... It's much more like real life where the causality is not always perfectly established between things and event, where you have to judge, and rely a lot on your sheer intuition to really know what is going on. Even Flash, who really was the Carlsen of BW, never played twice the same build. The timings were always a tiny bit different, his unit behaved a little bit differently too. Slight details you don't even notice about, he doesn't even notice about but they are there and will make a difference.Sorry for the novel, but being a former BW player and a chess maniac, I thought a lot about it. My conclusion ended up being that chess was so much better than Starcraft (no offense, SC is an amazing game and I love it), because this little straightforward material gave a depth that no RTS will ever have. Starcraft is a beautiful, amazing, enjoyable pond. Chess is the ocean.Good to agree with Idra once in my life. He is a smart kid I believe, even though I never liked his personality.



@ aintthatfunny, Musicus, pedrlz :

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback! I'm glad you like the articles, I'll keep them coming.



@ Biff the Understudy :

I very much agree with you that all these claims that chess is like life are really stupid. For example, Kasparov's famous book "How Life Imitates Chess" is nonsense. The comparisons he makes in the book are so general that they could easily be made about any other game as well. In fact most of Kasparov's books that aren't about the actual game of chess are kind of weak.



Regarding your comments about Sherlock Holmes (I've read all short stories and novels many times because they're just wonderful; my favorite is the Hound of the Baskervilles) I'd say that Sherlock Holmes does not have perfect information when he solves the crimes. He's just extremely good at drawing conclusions from the very limited data he has.



=========================================================================================



In other news from now on I'll post slightly expanded versions of my articles here:



http://revtiberius.blogspot.ca/



because on an external blog I can directly embed and analyze chess games, which as far as I know I can't do here. (Is that right, does anybody know?)







Thanks! I appreciate the feedback! I'm glad you like the articles, I'll keep them coming.I very much agree with you that all these claims that chess is like life are really stupid. For example, Kasparov's famous book "How Life Imitates Chess" is nonsense. The comparisons he makes in the book are so general that they could easily be made about any other game as well. In fact most of Kasparov's books that aren't about the actual game of chess are kind of weak.Regarding your comments about Sherlock Holmes (I've read all short stories and novels many times because they're just wonderful; my favorite is the Hound of the Baskervilles) I'd say that Sherlock Holmes does not have perfect information when he solves the crimes. He's just extremely good at drawing conclusions from the very limited data he has.=========================================================================================In other news from now on I'll post slightly expanded versions of my articles here:because on an external blog I can directly embed and analyze chess games, which as far as I know I can't do here. Teaching Chess to a Starcraft 2 Grandmaster: http://revtiberius.blogspot.ca

RevTiberius Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 353 Posts Last Edited: 2013-04-02 03:58:12 #176



http://revtiberius.blogspot.com



Episode VI - How to Analyze a Position and Formulate a Plan:



A critical skill for any chess player to have is the ability to accurately and systematically analyze positions. During a chess game it is very tempting to just look at "interesting" moves or randomly start calculating variations. This approach however, will almost always neglect the deeper positional characteristics of a position. And unless you're playing blitz, this will also make it hard to make good use of the time allotted to you.



Therefore, now that we have covered some of the basic tactical elements in chess, in our last lesson I taught Pyre a more systematic way to analyze a position, and form a plan based on the results of the analysis.



There are many good books about this topic. I think eventually I'll post a list of useful resources for beginners and novices. The approach I was taught many years ago by my first chess coach is based on Karpov and Mazukevich's recommendations in their book "Find the Right Plan". By the way I think this is a book that does not get the attention it deserves.



An extended version of this blog (inlcuding games - coming soon!) is available here:A critical skill for any chess player to have is the ability to accurately and systematically analyze positions. During a chess game it is very tempting to just look at "interesting" moves or randomly start calculating variations. This approach however, will almost always neglect the deeper positional characteristics of a position. And unless you're playing blitz, this will also make it hard to make good use of the time allotted to you.Therefore, now that we have covered some of the basic tactical elements in chess, in our last lesson I taught Pyre a more systematic way to analyze a position, and form a plan based on the results of the analysis.There are many good books about this topic. I think eventually I'll post a list of useful resources for beginners and novices. The approach I was taught many years ago by my first chess coach is based on Karpov and Mazukevich's recommendations in their book "Find the Right Plan". By the way I think this is a book that does not get the attention it deserves. The basic idea is that in order to choose the right course of action, a chess player must first have a good understanding of the current position. This will not only make it easier to select a good plan, it will also help identifying candidate moves.



According to Karpov and Mazukevich, to get a good understanding of any given position, a player must look at each of the following 7 evaluation criteria:



1. Material Balance

2. Immediate Threats

3. King Safety

4. Open Files

5. Pawn Structure, Strong and Weak Squares

6. Center and Space

7. Development and Coordination among minor and major pieces



This analysis does not need to be performed after every move, but it has to be done regularly. For example, a player could form the habit of doing this after move 10, 20, 30, 40 etc. This analysis should also be done whenever the position on the board changes dramatically, for example after a player sacrifices material.



After discussing these principles in general terms, Pyre and I looked at an example to practice this approach. We analyzed the game between Boris Gelfand and Vassily Ivanchuk from the 2013 Canadidates Tournament in London, which had been played earlier the same day. The players reached the following position after Gelfand's 17th move Ng5:





Gelfand-Ivanchuk at the 2013 FIDE Candidates Tournament in London 2013; position after 17. Ng5



We tried to to come up with a good plan for Black. As the first step, we analyzed the position through the lens of the 7 evaluation criteria:



1. Material Balance: the material balance is even. The only difference is that White has the bishop pair and a knight while Black has two knights an a bishop.

2. Immediate Threats: neither side has any immediate tactical or positional threats.

3. King Safety: Both kings are fairly safe. Black and White have castled queenside which means that neither side can easily launch a pawn storm on the opponent. Due to the missing c-pawn, White's king is a little bit more exposed, but this will probably not have a significant impact on the game.

4. Open Files: There are no open files in this position. White has the half-open c- and g-files available to him and could potentially double up rooks on either of them. Black currently controls the half-open d-file.

5. Pawn Structure, Strong and Weak Squares: Despite the double pawn on the f-file, White has the better pawn structure. He doesn't have any potentially weak pawns. At the same time his pawns control many important central squares.

White has strong squares on e5 and g5, and possibly c5 even though Black can control that square with a pawn if necessary. F3 is a weak square though it is currently not easy for Black to place a piece there. White's pawn structure also does not have any real weaknesses.

Black on the other hand has (somewhat) strong squares on e4 and d5, but also several weak squares: e5, g5 and g6 are permanently weak, and c5 can only be controlled if Black is willing to compromise his queenside pawn structure. The backward pawn on g7 is weak and in an endgame the pawns on e6 and h4 are potential weaknesses as well.

6. Center and Space: The center is closed. White has a slightly more solid pawn mass in the center while Black's minor pieces better control the central squares. Neither side has an obvious space advantage. Both Black and White have more mobility on the queen side than the king side.

7. Development and Coordination among minor and major pieces: Both sides have completed their development. The white knight on the strong square g5 looks impressive, but it is unclear what role it serves there. This in fact may be a good example that a "strong" square isn't necessarily also a "useful" square. White also has the bishop pair. The bishop on c4 is very strong indeed, indirectly targeting the Black's weak pawn on e6. The bishop could also pin Black's knight on c6, which could be very unpleasant for Black indeed, especially if White doubles up in the half-open c-file. However, White's main problem and in fact the defining characteristic of this position is the bad bishop on h2. The bishop doesn't contribute anything to White's game, and activating or exchanging it will require a lot of time.



Formulating a Plan:

After this in-depth analysis of the position, we started formulating a plan for Black. In my opinion assessing the 7 evaluation criteria is the easier part. It is more difficult to come to the right conclusion what the analysis of these criteria means, and which of the criter