Do members on here have chess coaching

[Arshad Ali]

I rather doubt it. Grandmasters with more achievements than Kotov have written that they don't think like a tree. Instead they have suggested the "make it work" method. You spot a winning (or drawing) idea and try to remove the impediments that prevent it. Another approach is "put the pieces on the right squares". That can work without an awful lot of calculation. There are players who will try to calculate to great depths and sometimes it comes off as they find hidden resources and ideas. Other times, they just get into serious time pressure.

Personally I find that patterns go a long way, so you see several moves as just one.

Kotov took it too far and over-stressed the mechanical aspect of it. In reality the analysis tree is mingled with themes and patterns, and various objectives bias the nature of calculation. And in most cases a master will calculate only two or three moves ahead. But there is still the discipline of making a short list of candidate moves each time -- and going over them in a disciplined and systematic fashion before making a reasoned choice, As others have pointed out (Soltis? King?), in real life a master often goes over the same line two or three times, and a master often adds candidates as he analyses and new ideas occur. But the notion of that analysis tree is still useful and in tactically complex positions it's indispensable. I ascribe my own spurt in strength to disciplined analysis along the line advocated by Kotov.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Have I been missing some magic trick here? Is there some secret to calculating variations that beginners tend to miss out on? Is it something that is difficult to discover by yourself without being taught?

I rather doubt it. Grandmasters with more achievements than Kotov have written that they don't think like a tree. Instead they have suggested the "make it work" method. You spot a winning (or drawing) idea and try to remove the impediments that prevent it. Another approach is "put the pieces on the right squares". That can work without an awful lot of calculation. There are players who will try to calculate to great depths and sometimes it comes off as they find hidden resources and ideas. Other times, they just get into serious time pressure.


Personally I find that patterns go a long way, so you see several moves as just one.

Most (older) British players have a home made style. The downside of this is a likelihood of technical weaknesses, the upside is a hopefully a more creative approach.

Something I've found that works remarkably well is being alert to your opponent making a move that 'feels' wrong, and then thinking a bit and finding a tactical or positional exploitation of that move. This can work well in the opening, unless your opponent knows the position better than you do. Just being alert can be enough. As can the process of elimination. If all the other moves are bad or not working, and there is another move that might work and doesn't lose instantly, it can sometimes be the best move.

The game that I drew as Black at the 4NCL hinged on a nice tactical twist, but it counts as a swindle because I am in fact totally lost. I've only just realised this, despite showing several players who either didn't see the winning line for my opponent, or failed to realise the way to win.

[Event "4NCL Division 3"]<br> [Date "2013.05.05"]<br> [Round "10"]<br> [White "Golam Ali"]<br> [Black "Chris Kreuzer"]<br> [Result "0.5-0.5"]<br> [SetUp "1"]<br> [FEN "1R6/1P6/7p/7k/8/6PK/1r6/8 b - - 0 1"]

Black to play, what result?

I did have another Black pawn on f5, but that was eventually taken by the White king, and now (down to my last 2 minutes of the entire game, with my opponent still having an hour), I checked the White king until it fled and hid on h3. Now, I only have one move left to avoid a loss, but the trick here is to see the trap this sets for White, and to see how White should actually win. I'm pretty sure it wins for White, though I've not checked it with an engine. The interesting thing is that (if my analysis is correct), if you move the king and pawn constellation on the g- and h-files up or down one square, those positions are drawn. It appears to be this specific inbetween one that is won for White and lost for Black, for reasons that are obvious once you've solved the positions. Possibly this is standard from endgame books, but it is interesting if you've not seen it before.

[Arshad Ali]

Looks like white's threat is 2.g4+ followed by 3.Rg8+ and queening the b-pawn. 1...Rb3 stops that but then 2.Rg8 Rxb7 3.g4++.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Looks like white's threat is 2.g4+ followed by 3.Rg8+ and queening the b-pawn. 1...Rb3 stops that but then 2.Rg8 Rxb7 3.g4++.

OK, so you missed the trap Black set (my opponent saw this, and gave up the b7 pawn and the game was drawn after I made a 10.2 claim as I had less than two minutes left, and two arbiters, at least one of whom posts here, stood there wondering if they were going to have to stand there for my opponent's entire remaining time of 1 hour, before my opponent realised he had no way to make progress and accepted a draw). So what is that trap and how should White actually win?

[Ian Thompson]

Looks like white's threat is 2.g4+ followed by 3.Rg8+ and queening the b-pawn. 1...Rb3 stops that but then 2.Rg8 Rxb7 3.g4++.

I prefer 2. ... Rxg3+.

[Mick Norris]

Looks like white's threat is 2.g4+ followed by 3.Rg8+ and queening the b-pawn. 1...Rb3 stops that but then 2.Rg8 Rxb7 3.g4++.

instead of Rxb7, I assume Rxg3 for stalemate - edit, Ian beat me to it

[Roger de Coverly]

So what is that trap and how should White actually win?

The stalemate trap is obvious enough so White has to avoid it. The next trick is to advance the g pawn. If taken by Kxg4, Rg8 check wins, otherwise the pawn goes to g5. This threatens to win with g6 or gxh6. Also hxg5 will lose to Rh8 check. Black will eventually run out of checks or squares for the Rook.

It would have been a fun one for arbiters to understand that your opponent was making progress as some chess knowledge would have been needed.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

So what is that trap and how should White actually win?

The stalemate trap is obvious enough so White has to avoid it. The next trick is to advance the g pawn. If taken by Kxg4, Rg8 check wins, otherwise the pawn goes to g5. This threatens to win with g6 or gxh6. Also hxg5 will lose to Rh8 check. Black will eventually run out of checks or squares for the Rook.

It would have been a fun one for arbiters to understand that your opponent was making progress as some chess knowledge would have been needed.

The stalemate trick (which others also pointed out) is not that difficult to spot but possible to miss. It did its job, though, which was to distract from the other possibilities! I had a game last year where I made a move that left my opponent pondering a stalemate trick that was just obvious enough to distract him from a forced mating line. The game was still lost but saved in a perpetual later. I was also very short of time there. It seems that being short of time can distract your opponents enough that they rush their moves - of course they shouldn't, but it does seem to happen.

Your plan to win is correct - just advance that g-pawn. If the pawns are one rank up the board (h7 and g4), it is drawn as Black is close enough to the back rank to avoid the rook check. If the pawns are one rank further down (h5 and g2), I think it is drawn (not double-checked this) because the Black h-pawn ends up on the g-file far enough advanced to save the game after the rook is sacrificed for the b-pawn. In the game position (pawns on h6 and g3), White can force the optimal position of his king on d5, and that is close enough to the g-file to be won for White (if the Black pawn was on h7 instead of h6, it would be drawn). There are some other stalemate tricks, but most can be avoided by playing g4+.

To be fair, if my opponent had played g4+ I would not have made a 10.2 claim as it would have been quite rightly rejected. It was only in the position where I can check incessantly with my rook with only the g-pawn and h-pawn left (the b-pawn had been captured) and no progress is being made that a 10.2 claim would have any chance. I also had sufficient time left on my clock (98 seconds, another advantage of digital clocks) to make 50 moves with no pawn moves and no checks, and enough time on my opponent's clock (around 60 minutes) for him to write down the 50 moves...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

My little diversion seems to have killed the chess coaching aspect of this thread, so in an attempt to bring it back on track, the only serious coaching I had was a couple of sessions with an IM in around 2002-3, and one session with someone (possibly David Rumens, though possibly not) at one of the British Championships at Torquay. Other than that (and the grounding of learning my chess at Richmond Junior Chess Club, which though I only started at 14 or 15, really helped a lot - playing chess nearly every Saturday afternoon for 2-3 years was incredibly fun), the only other 'help' comes from sometimes going through games with, or playing with, stronger players. That always helps, especially when they spot things that you hadn't. Beating weaker players doesn't help you yourself, but you should always go through the game with them if they ask, and one day (especially when playing juniors) they might be better than you!

[Paul McKeown]

the late Bob Wade, recently returned from an extensive stay in Moscow studying the Russian methods. This must have been about 1956. For the best part of a year, Bob, at that time a committed communist

Note - My bold

I do not believe this to be true. I know that it has been said by several people, for one of several reasons, none of which have ever stood up to critical scrutiny. I asked RGW personally and directly whether he was ever a Communist. He denied it quite categorically.

I would be interested in the reason that Paul Bielby makes this statement. If he could let us know, then we could ascertain whether or not it was true.

[Paul Bielby]

Was Bob Wade a Communist?

I hadn't intended to answer this as my original contribution to this thread was meant as a tribute to the man who had coached me and who had helped in many ways to inspire my enthusiasm for the game. He certainly gave me that impression when we met at Cambridge 55 years ago. He was seldom without his 'Daily Worker' and certainly introduced me to that paper (and didn't he contribute to it - even if only a chess column? - Leonard may remember). Whether or not he was a party member I don't know, but in a fairly right wing Cambridge environment, it may be that he played up the role - he always had a lively sense of humour.

Back to my main point - he was an inspiring teacher - and with the Cambridge group, and possibly others at that time, must have been one of the very first people to coach chess systematically in this country.

[Paul McKeown]

He was seldom without his 'Daily Worker' ... didn't he contribute to it

Paul, thanks for your reply.

Bob Wade's column in the Daily Worker ran for most weeks from 1952 - 1957. Bob was handed the authorship of the column by William Winter, who was indeed a Communist. You won't find any didactics in communism (of whatever variety the editors supported in that period) in Bob's column, though, as it was solely concerned with chess.

William Winter explained why he handed over the column to Bob:

Last but by no means least in the category of the chess professional's work is newspaper reporting and the editorship of chess columns. All over the continent this has always been regarded as the special preserve of the professional master, and one of his principal sources of revenue. All the leading European newspapers carry columns edited by the leading players, which are, in consequence, a real benefit to the student. In England the case is vastly different. "Why is it" the Belgian master Koltanowski remarked to me, on the occasion of his first visit to this country, "Why is it that in England you give all ze chess columns to ze people who cannot play ze chess?" and I could only echo sadly, Why? When I joined the professional ranks in the middle of the twenties the situation with regard to chess reporting could only be described as disgraceful.

So Winter handed over the column to Bob, as he wished to ensure that it was written by someone professionally engaged in chess, who would gain some degree of financial security from it, rather than necessarily someone engaged in the ideological struggle.

Winter had collaborated with Bob in writing 'World Chess Championship 1951', W. Winter & R. G. Wade, Turnstile Press, 1951 and was happy with Bob's skill as a writer, editor and chess analyst. That book had received some excellent reviews, viz. e.g. BCM 1952, p. 13 (G. Abrahams). Furthermore, Bob became the British Chess Champion in 1952.

Nothing to do with C/communism and everything to do with the professional courtesy of one chess master towards another.

Bob explained to me that if he had been a C/communist, he would have been expected to produce his column, for the cause, in other words, gratis. He was paid, however, as he was a worker, rather than committed to the cause. The column ended in 1957, as, following the violent suppression of the Hungarian people in 1956, the Daily Worker lost a large part of its readership and was subsequently unable to pay for Bob's work. Bob was extremely grateful for the money given for his column, as he was living a precarious, hand to mouth, existence at the time.

The columns themselves were entirely devoted to chess and completely non-political. Often they were concerned with the development of chess amongst school children, such as:

Myrtle Barnes, of Bromley (Kent) county technical school, won the British girls' championship at Hastings. The Birmingham Easter congress had a record entry of 221. The newly instituted British junior championship was won by D.F. Griffiths, of Birmingham, with 6½ points from nine games. B. H. Wood (Sutton Coldfield) retained the senior Midlands championship title. The junior title was won by W. Powell of Staffordshire. The Southern Counties junior championship was won by J. T. Farrand...

Typical other columns were concerned with the British championships, Hastings, other strong national tournaments, the London League, National Club Championships, the BCF Counties Championships, the national correspondence championships, often illustrated with games played by himself, other well known players, and sometimes games by the most obscure of amateur players. He also dealt with the Olympiads, Interzonal and Candidates tournaments, World Championship matches and other international tournaments. An innovation of his column in The Daily Worker was to include at least one position in most columns with a puzzle to be solved, sometimes with a small prize, something that William Winter had not been been able to achieve. These positions illustrated openings, middlegames, endgames, problems, studies...

It is certainly true that Bob's political views throughout his life were of the Left, but there are many shades of opinion on the Left. Only a minority of those views are communist in nature, whether or not with a big 'C'.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Black to play, what result?

I told you rook endings were interesting

[Jonathan Bryant]

... Several reasons, Jonathan.

Interesting answer Niall, thanks. I'm sure a lot of us would recognise a lot of what you say.


I was wondering if you felt having a 'pacemaker' was part of the benefits of having formal coaching. Somebody to keep you on track/give you a structured programme. Rather than bouncing around from subject to subject or giving up or finding a reason to 'do it next week'. I would imagine having a weekly/monthly/whateve lesson approaching gives a rather concrete incentive to get the homework done.