My rating is 2100 Lichess.org rapid. First part just wrote down my main thoughts after solving, you can skip that) and just read summary.
1) Ivanchuk-Giri
Considered d4, Ba5, Qd6. 1... d4 2 e4 didn't like Losing the position. Opted for Ba5(no Nb3, N:c5, due to Bc7, B:f3 and Qd6 winning a piece) chose Ba5 as Best move with evaluation -0,7 and d4 as - 0,2.
2) Morovic-Swinkels
Considered d4 and d3. d4 I evalute +0,5, after Ne6 2)Nd2 with Nc4 coming.
After d3 I consider the position about equal with 2)e4, 3)Nd2 coming
3)Morovich-Obregon
I would evaluate 3 possible captures Nd4, Qd4, ed as +0,8 +0,3 +0,1
Aftet Nd4 a plan looks Like exchange LSBs, Nf5, Ne2, Ng3, f3 if needed. Maybe include Bc3, Ra1, Ra7
Qd4 also nice battery with Bb2
ed I don't like since it closes rhe DSB.
4) Savchenko-Lysyj
Qg3 main move since the plan is to attack the King after e5, Bd3, Ne4, +0,5
Qc7 and Qd2 I beleive are about equal moves and the position is about equal
5) Choosing between e6 and b5. e6 is better we have a nice plan of advancing the queenside pawns after exchange, White has Hard time pushung in the center. After 1... b5 2 e4, 3 e5 is coming we Will have to sac the exchange and since the night doesn't land on d4, because of g4, White is slightly better. would estimate -0,3 and +0,5
6)Pap-Papp
Main moves Considered c6, Rab8, f5. Couldn't make f5 Work. C6 too passive after 2) bc bc 3)de fe 4)0-0 the d 6 pawn is weak. Rab8 with hope to get f5 in after Re8, Nf8, Ng6... Evaluation Rab8 +0,6, c6 +1,1
In summary spend about 15-20mins solving each position.
2 times picked Best moves, 3 times second Best moves and one puzzle picked 2 bad moves. Average Eval mistake for Considered moves is about 0,6.
Your puzzle ideas I very much like. Typical puzzles are pretty far of a real game thinking. Slight edge puzzles are great, loved solving them. The only thing it's Hard to say after all did I solve it or not? What's the criteria? Maybe break them: did I pick the right moves as candidate? Did I place them in correct order? Was my evaluation precise?
Or Maybe no need to "solve" just use them as an exercise. See positions, tactical ideas, themes you struggle in.
And as pointed out earlier the script probably needs bigger depth.
Hi Adel! Thank you for your feedback, which is also very much in line with what I myself has been puzzling with. How to give the solver the success of having done a task correctly. Getting the high of finding a correct solution is missing a bit solving these positions. I have made another puzzle set that I will soon write more about :)
I just thought of a concept for a similar type of book that I would be interested in.
On the front side of a page you show a position that has close to equal material with no tactics.
On the back side of the page it shows that the CPU evaluation gives one side a clear advantage and you provide an explanation why that side is ahead. Here's an example from one of my games:
Material-wise, White is up a pawn. The CPU evaluates one side as clearly superior... about 3 points at depth 35. Which side is it and why?
I think a book of these sorts of positions could really help me evaluate non-tactical positions. How to "collect nuts" (as you said) when there aren't tactics.
Tough one. very hard to come up with a concrete plan other than expanding through
either …c5 or …d5. That’s all I got.
Morovic Fernandez, Ivan vs Swinkels, Robin
I see that black has what looks like a comfortable position with some forward-placed pieces. I would like to kick the black donkey back so I would consider d4 as a candidate. also I see that Bg4 may force a bishop exchange. also, e4 could be a fork if well supported. I’d play e4 and if …Ne4, Bf3. Overall I think White’s position is meh and the best I could do is simplify hoping something come up.
Morovic Fernandez, Ivan vs Obregon Rivero, Juan Carlos
This one seems simpler. White’s knight is hanging. exd4 blocks my bishop on a1. however taking Nxd4 put the knight on a better square and attacks Black’s most active piece and if …Bh7, then Bd3 forcing an exchange with White’s not-so-useful light squared bishop.
Savchenko, Boris vs Lysyj, Igor
White has no good move other than retreating the queen. but where to? Too complex for my bain.
Chernyshov, Konstantin vs Simantsev, Mikhail
Intuitively, I feel White should kick the c3 knight away to increase the pressure on the d5 pawn and later on the d2 pawn. I would push b4. if the Nc3 move, the d5 pawn falls. if e4 protecting d5, then Black will have the a8-g1 diagonal open with c4+. an exchange of queens is ok for black as white’s pawn structure is not that great.
Pap, Gyula vs Papp, Gabor
I cannot find a good move for Black. Opening the center seems logical since White’s king is still un-castled but neither …exd4, …c5 or …d5 look promising.
i just realized my response to that position had ...c5 and ...d5 instead of ...c4 and ...d5 😁 I thought of d4 for a couple of reasons based: 1) the c3 square looked weak and 2) when i see a pawn on e3 or e6 with a possible push the a d pawn to harass it, I look at that line. in this case both c5 and d5 looked like they would give Black more space I didn’t calculate too deep so I don’t know if either is a good move. I know we should play based on concrete calculations but in these kinds of positions, the calculations are too wide and too deep for me.
I loved it. I got the first three right fairly quickly. The last three I got wrong, perhaps needed to take more time on them. For the last one I played Rfb1, to protect b7 and give Nh7 a square to re-route and I still don't understand why this is inferior -> it's only 0.2 worse at 23 depth so maybe this one doesn't work.
For a book I would hope to get a detailed explanation of what the human thinking is that allows you to pick the best move, (can be checked with an engine to make sure there are no errors, but engine lines alone are not useful).
Thanks for the feedback! I think the last one Black is not having it easy what ever you do. d5 seems to open up the position, and maybe avoids Black getting tottally cramped in. I'm trying to finetune the script a bit so it picks better positions. Would you rather have fewer positions that are annotated or a big workbook with positions?
Perhaps this depends on the target audience. My last OTB rating was 1680, I'm currently 1900 on Lichess and 1800 Chess.com.
For me, I doubt whether a big workbook (like Polgar's mate in 2) is useful for this "slightly better move" concept, it will be a great deal of work to provide human explanations of why the 0.3 pawn loss move is worse. Without those explanations I don't think the book would have much value to me, if you just provide the solution I would be left in the dark about why the alternative is better.
This is where your skill as a chess author really comes in to it. Picking puzzles that suit the target audience and providing explanations appropriate for their standard. I love Weeramantry, I didn't get on with Kasparov. Yet Kasparov's books are highly rated by some, I suspect those reviews are from stronger players than me.
I bought "Evaluate like a grandmaster" and didn't get as much from it as I was hoping, I'd be wary of buying such an unstructured set up again.
Personally I'm a fan of the traditional teaching format:
1) Teacher explains the theory
2) Teacher works a detailed example
3) The student does similar exercises to the example
4) The teacher corrects the student's work.
For part 4) I think the solutions have to explain why the close evaluation alternative moves are not as good. You don't have to do every possible move, just the -0.3 pawn losses, if the student hangs a -3 tactic in most cases they should be able to spot and understand that with an engine.
For checking this type of situation I like Lucas Chess software and its "Find Best Move" feature which rates all possible alternatives and the centipawn loss vs best move.
But in practice, there are many points to address in order to make this worth a book / series.
For example - The games selected are 2500+. To get those positions in off-beat openings [or even standard openings] the players have their own preparation / style of playing etc.
How about a collection of few quite positions where 1400 / 1800 / 2200+ players differ? Along with explanation / thought process behind those [from those players].
But it can be hard to structure / organize and figure out how to make it useful.
I like the idea, for players above a certain intermediate level. I, 1800 USCF, have heard every piece of positional chess advice already, so what I need is practice identifying which concepts apply in a given position.
But I didn't get the same results you did running the engine on these positions. For the 4th position, for example, at depth 15 in the Lichess built-in engine (which says "Stockfish 14+ NNUE" on my screen currently), there are two different moves that are 0.0.
I like your outside-the-box mindset! However, after some thinking about it, I don't think there would be any value to me for a "slightly better move" chess book.
Follow my reasoning:
1) For endgames, there aren't any slightly better moves... only moves that can hold the advantage or blow it.
2) For openings, the only slightly better moves I'd care about are the ones in my opening repertoire. I don't care about learning a slightly better move in the French, when I only play the Scandinavian. And so to find the "slightly better" opening moves, I'm better off with a Scandinavian opening book.
3) For the middle game, we're talking about positions that nobody has ever been in before, and so the best preparation is tactics and strategy. "Slightly better" moves are (by definition) not tactics. Thus, learning "slightly better" moves for a situation I'll never be in could help me with strategic principles... but again... I'm better off with an opening book that is full of strategies and plans for the middle games patterns that I am more likely to see.
Having bought 6 of your books, the ones I'm liking the most are the blindfold visualization books. I have no idea if they will make me a stronger player, but they are certainly working my brain! I do wish the opening one was 100% about opening traps, though. When I hit a solution that's not a trap (e.g., #20), it feels out of place. I think about the position mentally for hours, and then assume that it's some kind of crazy sacrifice and I just can't think deeply enough... only to find out that the "solution" is any of 3 quiet moves: b5 ("what masters play"), c6, or Bc5 ("fine moves"). None of which are tactical. Again... I don't really care about this opening, so if it isn't tactical, it's not worth learning. :)
Thank you for taking the time to think about this. I would slightly disagree upon all middle game solutions being a positional move. A tactical solution can result in a slightly better position. The Danish GM Sune Berg Hsnsen says “optional chess is like being a squirrel collecting nuts” 🐿
I was also just mulling over how to respond, and I was trying to compose a constructive critique regarding this proposal. For the moment, I'll just opine that a workbook as proposed may not have the greatest potential of reader/student engagement.
I would suggest rechecking the puzzles you find at a higher depth than 15. Otherwise I think many of the solutions and evaluations might change when people try it on their own pc.
You can even try a script that extracts positions where the difference in eval between depth 15 and 20 is more than a certain margin, and that might give you some interesting insight into what kinds of positions have hidden depth.
I like the idea, but you need a depth of more than 15. At Depth 15, a differnce of 0.7 centipawns could be plain wrong.
Yeah, I think that is one of my takeaways from this post!
My rating is 2100 Lichess.org rapid. First part just wrote down my main thoughts after solving, you can skip that) and just read summary.
1) Ivanchuk-Giri
Considered d4, Ba5, Qd6. 1... d4 2 e4 didn't like Losing the position. Opted for Ba5(no Nb3, N:c5, due to Bc7, B:f3 and Qd6 winning a piece) chose Ba5 as Best move with evaluation -0,7 and d4 as - 0,2.
2) Morovic-Swinkels
Considered d4 and d3. d4 I evalute +0,5, after Ne6 2)Nd2 with Nc4 coming.
After d3 I consider the position about equal with 2)e4, 3)Nd2 coming
3)Morovich-Obregon
I would evaluate 3 possible captures Nd4, Qd4, ed as +0,8 +0,3 +0,1
Aftet Nd4 a plan looks Like exchange LSBs, Nf5, Ne2, Ng3, f3 if needed. Maybe include Bc3, Ra1, Ra7
Qd4 also nice battery with Bb2
ed I don't like since it closes rhe DSB.
4) Savchenko-Lysyj
Qg3 main move since the plan is to attack the King after e5, Bd3, Ne4, +0,5
Qc7 and Qd2 I beleive are about equal moves and the position is about equal
5) Choosing between e6 and b5. e6 is better we have a nice plan of advancing the queenside pawns after exchange, White has Hard time pushung in the center. After 1... b5 2 e4, 3 e5 is coming we Will have to sac the exchange and since the night doesn't land on d4, because of g4, White is slightly better. would estimate -0,3 and +0,5
6)Pap-Papp
Main moves Considered c6, Rab8, f5. Couldn't make f5 Work. C6 too passive after 2) bc bc 3)de fe 4)0-0 the d 6 pawn is weak. Rab8 with hope to get f5 in after Re8, Nf8, Ng6... Evaluation Rab8 +0,6, c6 +1,1
In summary spend about 15-20mins solving each position.
2 times picked Best moves, 3 times second Best moves and one puzzle picked 2 bad moves. Average Eval mistake for Considered moves is about 0,6.
Your puzzle ideas I very much like. Typical puzzles are pretty far of a real game thinking. Slight edge puzzles are great, loved solving them. The only thing it's Hard to say after all did I solve it or not? What's the criteria? Maybe break them: did I pick the right moves as candidate? Did I place them in correct order? Was my evaluation precise?
Or Maybe no need to "solve" just use them as an exercise. See positions, tactical ideas, themes you struggle in.
And as pointed out earlier the script probably needs bigger depth.
Hi Adel! Thank you for your feedback, which is also very much in line with what I myself has been puzzling with. How to give the solver the success of having done a task correctly. Getting the high of finding a correct solution is missing a bit solving these positions. I have made another puzzle set that I will soon write more about :)
Hi Martin!
I just thought of a concept for a similar type of book that I would be interested in.
On the front side of a page you show a position that has close to equal material with no tactics.
On the back side of the page it shows that the CPU evaluation gives one side a clear advantage and you provide an explanation why that side is ahead. Here's an example from one of my games:
https://lichess.org/Lou6VvXU#15
Black to move.
Material-wise, White is up a pawn. The CPU evaluates one side as clearly superior... about 3 points at depth 35. Which side is it and why?
I think a book of these sorts of positions could really help me evaluate non-tactical positions. How to "collect nuts" (as you said) when there aren't tactics.
Kind regards,
DB
I’m thinking in similar lanes! I will figure out a concept
Ivanchuk, Vassily vs Giri, Anish
Tough one. very hard to come up with a concrete plan other than expanding through
either …c5 or …d5. That’s all I got.
Morovic Fernandez, Ivan vs Swinkels, Robin
I see that black has what looks like a comfortable position with some forward-placed pieces. I would like to kick the black donkey back so I would consider d4 as a candidate. also I see that Bg4 may force a bishop exchange. also, e4 could be a fork if well supported. I’d play e4 and if …Ne4, Bf3. Overall I think White’s position is meh and the best I could do is simplify hoping something come up.
Morovic Fernandez, Ivan vs Obregon Rivero, Juan Carlos
This one seems simpler. White’s knight is hanging. exd4 blocks my bishop on a1. however taking Nxd4 put the knight on a better square and attacks Black’s most active piece and if …Bh7, then Bd3 forcing an exchange with White’s not-so-useful light squared bishop.
Savchenko, Boris vs Lysyj, Igor
White has no good move other than retreating the queen. but where to? Too complex for my bain.
Chernyshov, Konstantin vs Simantsev, Mikhail
Intuitively, I feel White should kick the c3 knight away to increase the pressure on the d5 pawn and later on the d2 pawn. I would push b4. if the Nc3 move, the d5 pawn falls. if e4 protecting d5, then Black will have the a8-g1 diagonal open with c4+. an exchange of queens is ok for black as white’s pawn structure is not that great.
Pap, Gyula vs Papp, Gabor
I cannot find a good move for Black. Opening the center seems logical since White’s king is still un-castled but neither …exd4, …c5 or …d5 look promising.
How did you evaluate d4 in the Ivanchuck vs Giri position?
i just realized my response to that position had ...c5 and ...d5 instead of ...c4 and ...d5 😁 I thought of d4 for a couple of reasons based: 1) the c3 square looked weak and 2) when i see a pawn on e3 or e6 with a possible push the a d pawn to harass it, I look at that line. in this case both c5 and d5 looked like they would give Black more space I didn’t calculate too deep so I don’t know if either is a good move. I know we should play based on concrete calculations but in these kinds of positions, the calculations are too wide and too deep for me.
I loved it. I got the first three right fairly quickly. The last three I got wrong, perhaps needed to take more time on them. For the last one I played Rfb1, to protect b7 and give Nh7 a square to re-route and I still don't understand why this is inferior -> it's only 0.2 worse at 23 depth so maybe this one doesn't work.
For a book I would hope to get a detailed explanation of what the human thinking is that allows you to pick the best move, (can be checked with an engine to make sure there are no errors, but engine lines alone are not useful).
Thanks for the feedback! I think the last one Black is not having it easy what ever you do. d5 seems to open up the position, and maybe avoids Black getting tottally cramped in. I'm trying to finetune the script a bit so it picks better positions. Would you rather have fewer positions that are annotated or a big workbook with positions?
Perhaps this depends on the target audience. My last OTB rating was 1680, I'm currently 1900 on Lichess and 1800 Chess.com.
For me, I doubt whether a big workbook (like Polgar's mate in 2) is useful for this "slightly better move" concept, it will be a great deal of work to provide human explanations of why the 0.3 pawn loss move is worse. Without those explanations I don't think the book would have much value to me, if you just provide the solution I would be left in the dark about why the alternative is better.
This is where your skill as a chess author really comes in to it. Picking puzzles that suit the target audience and providing explanations appropriate for their standard. I love Weeramantry, I didn't get on with Kasparov. Yet Kasparov's books are highly rated by some, I suspect those reviews are from stronger players than me.
I bought "Evaluate like a grandmaster" and didn't get as much from it as I was hoping, I'd be wary of buying such an unstructured set up again.
Personally I'm a fan of the traditional teaching format:
1) Teacher explains the theory
2) Teacher works a detailed example
3) The student does similar exercises to the example
4) The teacher corrects the student's work.
For part 4) I think the solutions have to explain why the close evaluation alternative moves are not as good. You don't have to do every possible move, just the -0.3 pawn losses, if the student hangs a -3 tactic in most cases they should be able to spot and understand that with an engine.
For checking this type of situation I like Lucas Chess software and its "Find Best Move" feature which rates all possible alternatives and the centipawn loss vs best move.
Good luck!!
Thanks again! I will keep this in mind
The idea is pretty good and needs consideration.
But in practice, there are many points to address in order to make this worth a book / series.
For example - The games selected are 2500+. To get those positions in off-beat openings [or even standard openings] the players have their own preparation / style of playing etc.
How about a collection of few quite positions where 1400 / 1800 / 2200+ players differ? Along with explanation / thought process behind those [from those players].
But it can be hard to structure / organize and figure out how to make it useful.
That is also an interesting idea, but probably harder to figure out how to create
I like the idea, for players above a certain intermediate level. I, 1800 USCF, have heard every piece of positional chess advice already, so what I need is practice identifying which concepts apply in a given position.
But I didn't get the same results you did running the engine on these positions. For the 4th position, for example, at depth 15 in the Lichess built-in engine (which says "Stockfish 14+ NNUE" on my screen currently), there are two different moves that are 0.0.
I need a deeper engine to check the positions in the end to make the quality better
Hi Martin!
I like your outside-the-box mindset! However, after some thinking about it, I don't think there would be any value to me for a "slightly better move" chess book.
Follow my reasoning:
1) For endgames, there aren't any slightly better moves... only moves that can hold the advantage or blow it.
2) For openings, the only slightly better moves I'd care about are the ones in my opening repertoire. I don't care about learning a slightly better move in the French, when I only play the Scandinavian. And so to find the "slightly better" opening moves, I'm better off with a Scandinavian opening book.
3) For the middle game, we're talking about positions that nobody has ever been in before, and so the best preparation is tactics and strategy. "Slightly better" moves are (by definition) not tactics. Thus, learning "slightly better" moves for a situation I'll never be in could help me with strategic principles... but again... I'm better off with an opening book that is full of strategies and plans for the middle games patterns that I am more likely to see.
Having bought 6 of your books, the ones I'm liking the most are the blindfold visualization books. I have no idea if they will make me a stronger player, but they are certainly working my brain! I do wish the opening one was 100% about opening traps, though. When I hit a solution that's not a trap (e.g., #20), it feels out of place. I think about the position mentally for hours, and then assume that it's some kind of crazy sacrifice and I just can't think deeply enough... only to find out that the "solution" is any of 3 quiet moves: b5 ("what masters play"), c6, or Bc5 ("fine moves"). None of which are tactical. Again... I don't really care about this opening, so if it isn't tactical, it's not worth learning. :)
Kind regards,
DB
Thank you for taking the time to think about this. I would slightly disagree upon all middle game solutions being a positional move. A tactical solution can result in a slightly better position. The Danish GM Sune Berg Hsnsen says “optional chess is like being a squirrel collecting nuts” 🐿
*potential
I was also just mulling over how to respond, and I was trying to compose a constructive critique regarding this proposal. For the moment, I'll just opine that a workbook as proposed may not have the greatest potential of reader/student engagement.
No worries about that! I appreciate honest feedback:) also unsure about the idea myself
Happy to help! Feel free to email me if you'd like anything proofread.
Kind regards,
DB
I would suggest rechecking the puzzles you find at a higher depth than 15. Otherwise I think many of the solutions and evaluations might change when people try it on their own pc.
That is a good idea. I was wondering if 20 would be a good middle ground?
Depends on how many puzzles you are aiming for, one idea would be select the puzzles using some low depth criteria, and then recheck on a higher depth
Clever! I will do that. The Nxd4/Qxd4 position would be eliminated in such a check
That's a really good idea.
You can even try a script that extracts positions where the difference in eval between depth 15 and 20 is more than a certain margin, and that might give you some interesting insight into what kinds of positions have hidden depth.
Ie pic out 1000 puzzles from the criteria's at depth 15, and then recheck the 1000 puzzles at depth 25