As I mentioned in my last entry, I would like to get some synergy going between this blog and my ChessLectures. With that in mind, here are some of the topics I’m planning to lecture on in the future (starting with the definites, then the possibles):
- Two Knights Defense, Part 3: A Recipe from my Secret Underground Laboratory
- Two Knights Defense, Part 4: Sveshnikov Strikes Again
- Strategic Decisions 104: Where Should I Put my Rooks?
- Tactical Motifs 203: Passed Pawns in the Middlegame
- Tactical Motifs 106: Pins (possible) (Maybe not necessary, because Jesse has done a couple of lectures on pins already.)
- King’s Gambit, Part 3: Falkbeer Counter Gambit (possible)
- possible series on one-pawn endgames (Jesse has already done a couple, but there are plenty more.)
Let me say a little bit about what I do and don’t like to lecture about. When I look at the Suggestion Box at ChessLecture, 90 percent of the requests I see are for particular opening variations. I skip by almost all of these, for several reasons. First, I only feel comfortable lecturing about openings that I actually play. But one of the quirks of my chess style is that I deliberately play non-fashionable openings. So the openings that people want to hear about — the latest wrinkle in the Slav Defense from the Topalov-Kramnik match, or whatever — are not the ones that I am best qualified to lecture on.
There’s a more fundamental issue here. I think that the vast majority of chess players obsess way, way too much about openings. Almost every opening is playable. (As far as I know, the only named opening that has ever been out-and-out refuted is Damiano’s Defense, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6?, and there are some people who will dispute even that!) The important thing is to find openings that you like, figure out why they are playable, and develop your own repertoire instead of just parroting what the books and masters tell you.
In Howard Goldowsky’s book, Engaging Pieces, he profiles a guy named Michael de la Maza, who claims he can teach anyone to improve to expert level. His secret: Study tactics, nothing but tactics. I think that de la Maza has a point, although he takes it a little bit too far. The majority of amateur games are decided by tactical blunders, not by brilliancies, not by deeply planned strategies, and especially not by memorized opening variations. If you simply eliminate those blunders, de la Maza says, you can become an expert. So if you really want to improve your chess, just keep drilling those tactics. Teach yourself to look for tactics even in positions where you don’t think there are any. It’s what Laszlo Polgar taught his daughters, and look how successful they’ve become!
I would even elaborate on de la Maza’s theory. Eliminate gross blunders in your own play, and you will reach class A. Learn to capitalize on your opponent’s blunders, and you will become an expert. Then the real chess begins!
And that, unfortunately, is where de la Maza copped out. Instead of learning how to play real chess, he quit when he reached expert. He saw chess improvement merely as a technical puzzle, and once he got to the point where that approach didn’t work any more, he lost interest.
So while I agree with de la Maza to a considerable extent, I can’t recommend his approach completely. I think that most players do want to learn about the art and craft of chess, even if they are not yet master craftsmen. It gives us some glimmer of what we are working towards. And I think that is what I most want to explore in my ChessLectures. I am still trying to learn the craft myself, and I hope that by sharing my efforts to learn, I will help you, too.
So don’t ask me for a particular opening (unless it’s one that I play!). What do you want to know about the craft of chess? Is there some master game that you’ve played through but really didn’t understand what was going on? What is bugging you, confusing you, or keeping you from achieving your goals? Or vice versa, have you just learned something new that you want to share with the chess world?
