Training Matches - advice sought

[David Robertson]

I've been approached by a colleague, badly out-of-form, to play a four-game match. He believes this will assist by forcing him to work at the game. We're roughly the same strength (or were before his bad run); and I'm happy to help. Indeed, we've started the match.

Trouble is, neither of us has played a match of this kind before. So I'm posting here to see if anyone has relevant experience or considered views on how best to go about a training exercise of this kind: that is, how to get the most out of it. Advice may not change our current match arrangements (described below); but I'm very much open to alternatives.

Our current match arrangements are:

* four games over two weeks (Tues & Thurs)
* games played to tournament standards (in our case, G90'/30" from move 1)
* openings, with specific variation, agreed two weeks prior to match (explained further below)
* different openings/variations in each game
* engine-based post mortems, analysis and discussion after the match

Because the exercise is designed to help my colleague, he gets to choose what he'd like to work on. But in the pre-match negotiations, I have the right to decline his preferences, just as he can decline mine. So, for example, he plays the French, but never the Winawer (which I'd invited); and he'll invite 1. e4 c5 but decline my offer of a Kan or Taimanov because he prefers to play 2 c3. That's fine, of course. So now, 2...Nf6 or 2...d5? He prefers to research how to meet the former, so that's what we'll play. And off we go to our prep. Come the game, it's prep v. prep until someone gets out-prepped, as in OTB games generally. In our model though, we've narrowed the range of prep work to a manageable shared interest.

Anyhow, so far so good. But does anyone have any suggestions for modification and improvement?

[John McKenna]

The format sounds good and hopefully there is something to be gained for both parties.

However, such matches can be somewhat on the narrow side regarding openings.

There's probably more to it than the outline given above and some things may arise unplanned from the experience - such as getting out of your 1.e4... opening comfort zones and playing/facing 1.d4/c4/Nf3 but that may well require an extension to more games.

The Gawain Jones v. Romain Edouard match, at the London Classic & Adam Raoof's Brambles event last year, had Gawain playing 1.c4 and 1... e5 was Romain's reply in all three games. Meanwhile Romain started 1.e4/d4/Nf3 when white and Gawain replied 1... c5/Nf6/c5 respectively. That kept the match from being too narrow by covering - 1.e4/d4/c4/Nf3 in the six games.

"* engine-based post mortems, analysis and discussion after the match"

That's a little odd - after each game are you sworn to silence until the match ends?

What would the ghost of Geoff Chandler say about engine-based activities?! You two should eschew the silicon and use your own carbon fibres to debate the content of the games first and not lazily collapse into the hypnotic headlights of an oncoming juggernaut until you reach the end of your own road.

Final questions - can I take it you are not playing for stakes (neither monetary nor meaty ones) and that the consumption of alcohol is strictly prohibited during play??

Not trying to be cheeky, just checking that it will not descend into farce, or worse.

[David Robertson]

The biggest challenge in our pre-match negotiations was to strike a balance between novelty (ie learning/trying something new); reliability (ie improving my colleague's existing repertoire); and manageability (ie we had to find time to prep). Too broad a canvas of opening options, such as we face in any competitive OTB game, would dilute the learning quality being sought after in this training exercise. And remember too, this particular match is designed to help my colleague, not me - though I'll doubtless get something from it. I think different criteria could apply if we were planning to help one another (viz the Jones-Edouard match). One snag though: as I mentioned in my post above, my opponent always meets 1 e4 with the French 3...Nf6. Alas, I rarely play 4 Bg5 because I don't know much about the MacCutcheon (4...Bb4); and it's not on my list to learn. So our options here are quite limited. We'll need to tweak this.

No post-match silence, of course. We discussed the first game before turning to some blitz to finish off the session. Since then, I've had a personal engine-based post mortem; doubtless my colleague has now done likewise. I expect we'll briefly compare findings before Game 2. I don't regard engine-based post mortem analysis as 'lazy' though. I find it hugely instructive, sometimes painfully so. I see no purpose in the pair of us chuntering about the game if all that means is recycling the judgement errors of the game just finished. Indeed that's what happened following Game 1: we both concluded I stood markedly worse at one point early on. By contrast, the engine shows quite clearly that we're exactly equal. Thereafter it shows I played the awkward ending with some precision. One lives, and learns.

No alcohol at all. No grading either. But I do lay on a large pot of fine coffee

[Matt Mackenzie]

Setting the opening(s) to be played beforehand precludes the games being graded anyway, doesn't it?

[Tim Harding]

... my opponent always meets 1 e4 with the French 3...Nf6. Alas, I rarely play 4 Bg5 because I don't know much about the MacCutcheon (4...Bb4); and it's not on my list to learn. So our options here are quite limited.

GM Parimarjan Negi in his fine book on the French, Caro-Kann and Philidor recommends 4 e5 against 3...Nf6 so no MacCutcheon. That is a critical line these days and is one you should try in your match.

[David Robertson]

I am. And I do. Not just in this match either.

Game 1 started: 1 e4 e6; 2 d4 d5; 3 Nc3 Nf6; 4 e5 Nfd7; 5 Nf3. This is the sideline in the Steinitz, never hitherto played by me. So something learned. I played it because my opponent requested it. Negi only discusses the far more common 5 f4. That's for Game 3 next week. But Moskalenko recommends 5 Nf3 in The Even More Flexible French (ch 18). My opponent knew this, and showed the benefit. But my copy arrived only a day or so back, so I'd not had time to prep from it. It's a good discussion though. Alas, much alas because his material is very fine, Berg spends three volumes discussing everything but 4 e5

[IM Jack Rudd]

I myself would play 5.Nce2.

[Roger de Coverly]

I myself would play 5.Nce2.

Older generations of players, I'm thinking of a quote by CHO'D Alexander, would rate tempi above putting pieces on their correct squares and thus feel uncomfortable in those French lines where you play both Nbd2 and Nge2, with follow ups of Nd2-f3 and Ne2-c3.

On the more general topic of training, playing five minute chess against an opponent of a similar standard is an approach to gaining a feel for a particular opening variation, system or set up. Up to a point you have to agree that the absolute result doesn't matter, so games are resigned or agreed drawn once the logical outcome is reasonably apparent.

[Steven DuCharme]

Your colleague may benefit from researching a book titled 'Practical Ches Exercises' by Ray Cheng. I've not seen it myself. Just came to mind. Hope your match is mutually beneficial.

[David Robertson]

playing five minute chess against an opponent of a similar standard is an approach to gaining a feel for a particular opening variation, system or set up. Up to a point you have to agree that the absolute result doesn't matter, so games are resigned or agreed drawn once the logical outcome is reasonably apparent.

I've got some sympathy with this - but with one reservation. If you've invested a few hours in diligent prep, it may be better initially to decant what you've absorbed into a longer format game rather than spoil games in a 5-min scramble. But I can see the virtue of a structured 5-min match where both players agree to explore different lines in the nominated opening or variation. Such a match might lead out from an agreed tabiya. Good idea.

Which brings me to a reflection, after two games now, on a suitable time limit. As I mentioned in the initial post, we're playing Fischer G90'/30". My feeling is that this is longer than necessary; that Fischer G60'/30" is entirely adequate. Why? Because we've both been sufficiently well-prepped in a pre-agreed opening that we've been able to rattle off the early moves rather quickly. I made more use of my time today because my opponent chose a line less familiar to me, in an opening where he was already familiar with the strategic ideas. In an important sense then, I got quite a lot from the exercise. Even so, we'd wrapped up the game (0.5, 31) well inside three hours.

For your interest, it was a c3 Sicilian: 1 e4 c5; 2 c3 Nf6; 3 e5 Nd5; 4 g3. This is the Rozentalis variation, described by Sveshnikov in his blockbuster volume on the opening as "commendably solid". Indeed it is. The position quickly simplifies, leaving White with a nagging initiative. I had to put in a shift to reach equality. The game continued: 4...d6; 5 exd6 Qxd6; 6 Bg2 Nc6; 7 Ne2 g6; 8 d4 cxd4; 9 Nxd4 Bg7; 10 Nxc6 bxc6. Apparently the theoretically approved move here is 10...Qe6+ when 11 Ne5 Qxe5; 12 Qe2 Qxe2; 13 Kxe2 is equal. I didn't know this though because I hadn't noticed the note tucked away in a game from the Sveshnikov book (p. 289). My opponent did know though. The engine doesn't seem to mind either way.

[Paul McKeown]

Sometimes a change is as good as a rest. Deliberately play openings that you are not familiar with. And as for not "chuntering", it is usually good to note what you thought and didn't think during a game. If you have no record of that, then there is nothing for an honest comparison with what the engine or books tell you.

[Paul Dargan]

@ Dave - As Black I prefer 5 ...e6 and to recapture on d6 with the bishop. This is the line proposed by Aagard in "Experts v's the anti-sicilians" - I've not seen anything since to convince me that Black isn't at least fine. Strangely this actually got played against me in 4NCL this year 1/2-1/2 at the time control though Black may have had an edge.

Paul Dargan

[David Robertson]

Yes, indeed, Paul D. That's how I've met 2 c3 on previous occasions, playing e6 before d6 with a straightforward game. On this occasion though, I thought I'd follow the ''standard' routine, and explore ideas following ...Qxd6; also giving set-ups after 7...g6 a spin for the first time. I was attracted to 7...e5 too; that, for another day.

Thanks for the prompt about the Aagard (& Shaw) book. I'd forgotten to look at that in my prep, browsing Palliser's Fighting the Anti-Sicilians instead. Which brings me to another reflection: one can invest a considerable amount of time in prep. But is it time well-spent? I enjoy the literature search - that's the academic in me; and I enjoy comparing different expert treatments of a given opening. I also accept the 'bleedin' obvious' that better prep makes for better (ie more pleasurable) chess: it can even win games for you!

But I'm an amateur, like most of us. And I've got other things I want to read - to be honest, more rewarding and important things, even as leisure. There's room for chess prep in a full life, but not if it drives out other things. In my case, it never will.

Then there's the political economist in me: the one who deals in cost-benefit analysis; the one for whom a calculation of opportunity costs is rarely out of mind. Put it like this: you'll play say, thirty competitive games a season, half as Black. Of those fifteen games, you'll face 1 e4 (8); 1 d4 (5) 1 xx (2). Of the eight games, you'll meet 1 e4 with 1...c5 (6) and 1...e5 (2). Of those six games, you'll meet 1 e4 c5; 2 Nf3 xx; 3 d4 on five occasions; and 1 e4 c5; 2 c3 just once (if at all). Hence, if I'm to be well-prepped to meet 2 c3, I have to invest a disproportionate amount of time to an event that will seldom trouble me. Titled players do, or have done this presumably. I don't know how they manage it. I don't think I have it in me to compete with their dedication. So I'll have to settle, as most of us, for bumbling along as we do. There's a book in this somewhere: From I Am to Amateur

Postscript It appears I'm far from the first to comment on the opportunity costs of chess study. This, from 1528

And what say you to the game at chesses? It is truely an honest kynde of enterteynmente and wittie. But me think it hath a fault, whiche is, that a man may be too cunning at it, for who ever will be excellent in the playe of chesses, I beleave he must beestowe much tyme about it, and applie it with so much study, that a man may assoone learne some noble scyence, or compase any other matter of importaunce, and yet in the ende in beestowing all that laboure, he knoweth no more but a game. Therfore in this I beleave there happeneth a very rare thing, namely, that the meane is more commendable than the excellency (Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier (1528, English 1561 by Sir Thomas Hoby)

Amen to that!

[Stewart Reuben]

David R your experimental match seems to be working out well. I played one on NY in 1964. Matches are rare but provide excellent experience. I have arranged several for developing players. Viswanathan Anand won 2.5-1.15 against Jonathan Levitt in 1987.
That is why we held the Brambles Gawain Jones v Romain Edouard 6 game match. We have been trying to arrange one between David Howell and a player, possibly Pentala Harikrishna. But it hasn't worked out yet.
For a couple of years we held a weekend 2 day congress where players had a 4 game match with their opponent. It was held after the Lloyds Bank Masters and we arranged matches with foreign IMs for leading English juniors. Only about 20 players entered and we abandoned the idea.
Pre-arranged openings indeed means the event can neither be graded, nor rated. But that doesn't much matter. My 1964 match was for money, quite normal in NY in those days. It was USCF Rated.

[John McKenna]

Thursday, must be the 4th and final game of this training match.

While not wishing to disturb the Prof's prep I am wondering what's been happening in the other games.

DavidR>Game 1 started: 1 e4 e6; 2 d4 d5; 3 Nc3 Nf6; 4 e5 Nfd7; 5 Nf3. This is the sideline in the Steinitz, never hitherto played by me. So something learned. I played it because my opponent requested it... But Moskalenko recommends 5 Nf3 in The Even More Flexible French (ch 18). My opponent knew this, and showed the benefit. But my copy arrived only a day or so back, so I'd not had time to prep from it. It's a good discussion though. Alas, much alas because his material is very fine, Berg spends three volumes discussing everything but 4 e5<

I know someone who read all of Berg's 3 vols. and found other (than no 4.e5) pot holes and dead ends. But, I guess it's the same for almost every comprehensive work.

So, how did the next few moves go? Or is that a trade secret?

Has much changed since this was written in Tim Harding's Classical French in 1991?

"1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nf3 - W forgoes Pf4 for rapid dev & piece play - 5... c5 6.dc (Bb5 - Gurgenidze's move... now rarely seen) Nc6 most exact forcing the reply - 7.Bf4 Bc5 8.Bd3 main line... W sets up the classic B sac..."

DR>Negi only discusses the far more common 5 f4. That's for Game 3 next week.<

So, Tuesday should have seen - 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4...

Any advance on that? (No need to reply until the match is over, or at all if you wish to keep it to yourselves.)

In contradistinction to Castiglione I give you his contemporary, Machiavelli -

... love peace but know how to wage war...

Whoever is more vigilant in observing the designs of the enemy in war, and endures much hardship in training his army, will incur fewer dangers, and can have greater hope for victory. (Niccolo Machiavelli, The Art of War, 1521)