Everything You Need To Know About Candidates Tournament 2024

(Cover photo taken from the official FIDE Website)

Introduction

On April 3rd, 2024, one of the most anticipated, exciting, and important chess tournaments of the year 1 – will begin.

The Candidates Tournament 2024, in which some of the World’s best players 2 will battle for the ultimate victory and the opportunity to challenge the current World Champion, Liren Ding, for the World Championship Title in a match later this year. 

Given the prestige and importance of this event, I thought it would be a nice idea to preview it and make a fool of myself by analyzing the players’ chances and predicting the outcome. 

I hope you will enjoy it and find it useful. Or at least retroactively laugh at my poor predictions later down the road when they all turn out to be completely wrong.

Candidates Tournament 2024

Regulations and Format

The Candidates Tournament 2024 will be held from April 3rd-April 22nd, 2024. For the very first time in history, 3 it will be held on North American soil – in the Great Hall in Toronto, Canada. Despite all the “hiccups” and “visa issues” along the way. 4

Like  every Candidates Tournament in the modern era, 5 the tournament will be held using the round-robin format. This means that every player will play two games against every other participant – one with White and one with Black,  6 throughout 14 rounds.

(Official schedule of the Candidates Tournament. Source: Candidates Tournament 2024 Regulations )

The time control for the event will be 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by an additional 30 minutes for the rest of the game. The players will also receive a 30-second increment per move – but only starting from move 41 (no increment until the first time control). 7 

Just like in the 2022 edition, in the case of a tie for first place, additional tiebreak games will be played. 8 The tiebreak system for 2024 is a little bit complicated, but it essentially consists of additional rapid games – and then also blitz games, if required. It also does take the possibility of multiple players tying for the first place, in which case an entirely new round-robin tournament 9 will be played. 10 

In contrast to the 2022 edition, where there was some ambiguity related to the importance of second place in the tournament due to Magnus Carlsen potentially not defending his title, 11 this time it is clear that the first place in the tournament is all that matters, since Liren has already announced he is going to defend his title, later this year.

List of Participants

As mentioned above, a total of eight players will be participating in the Candidates Tournament 2024. Qualification to the tournament was prescribed by the Candidates Tournament 2024 Regulations, as follows:

8 players that qualified for the Candidates Tournament 2024 – and their qualification paths/criteria – are as follows:

  • Ian Nepomniacthchi – runner-up in the 2023 World Chess Championship match
  • Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa – runner-up in the Chess World Cup 2023
  • Fabiano Caruana – 3rd place winner in the Chess World Cup 2023
  • Nijat Abasov – 4th place winner in the Chess World Cup 2023. Do note that only three players from the World Cup were supposed to qualify for the Candidates. But since the winner of the World Cup 2023 – Magnus Carlsen – refused his “invitation” to the Candidates, the spot was automatically assigned to the 4th place winner – Abasov.
  • Santos Gujrathi Vidit – winner of the FIDE Grand Swiss 2023
  • Hikaru Nakamura – runner-up of the FIDE Grand Swiss 2023
  • Gukesh Dommaraju – runner-up of the FIDE Circuit 2023. Since the winner of the circuit was Fabiano Caruana who already qualified via the World Cup, the spot was given to the runner-up – who was Gukesh – instead. You might also recall the race for the FIDE Circuit spot intensified at the very last minute, with Gukesh participating in several last-minute tournaments (London Classic, Chennai Grand Masters) in which he managed to overtake Anish Giri by a very narrow margin.
  • Alireza Firouzja – player with the highest rating that met FIDE’s requirements on January 2024. I am sure many of you will recall that the race for the rating spot was even more last-minute and controversial than the race for the FIDE Circuit. This entire story goes way beyond the scope of this article, but in case you were living under a rock in December 2023, you can read this and this article summarizing some of the key points.

Assessment of the participants’ chances

After introducing you to the regulations and the players, the time has come to make a fool out of myself by estimating each player’s chances and predicting the final standings of the tournament.

In my analysis, I will be focusing on three parameters:

  • Strength/Recent Form – I thought of considering these separately, but have ultimately decided to couple them together. Not only because I feel someone’s chess strength is closely connected to their form. But also because I realized I would not be comfortable judging the chess strengths of these players and comparing them to each other 12
  • Experience 
  • Head-to-head score against the other participants

Fabiano Caruana

Strength/Form

I hope Fabiano Caruana doesn’t need a particular introduction. For more than a decade, he has been considered to be one of the strongest chess players in the world. Many regard him as the 2nd best player of our generation. He came close to rivaling Magnus Carlsen on several occasions – most notably in 2018, just before their World Championship Match, when the difference between the two consisted of just a few rating points. No other player in the tournament came even remotely close to Caruana’s peak rating of 2844 ELO.

Caruana has not only historically been the 2nd best player in the world. But he is also entering the Candidates tournament as such. He is currently the only person – apart from Magnus Carlsen – to belong to the exclusive 2800+ ELO Club, with his rating sitting comfortably at 2803,2.

Such a high rating is the consequence of the fantastic form Caruana has been for the larger part of 2023. He won several elite events in which he participated (Superbet Chess Classic 2023, US Chess Championship 2023, Sinquefield Cup 2023) and had a very good performance in the World Cup 2023 (3rd place, securing the qualification spot) and Norway Chess 2023 (2nd place) and reasonable performance in FIDE Grand Swiss (+4-1=6, 7/11) and American Cup (3rd place).

Put simply, in the last year, Caruana hasn’t had even a mediocre – let alone a bad – event, so it is not a surprise his rating has once again skyrocketed.

(Caruana’s 2-year rating graph: Source: Caruana’s FIDE Profile)

This is not that surprising considering Caruana’s own admission that his motivation for chess has returned after it dipped down in the Covid/post-COVID period. I also think the fact that Magnus Carlsen will not be the one awaiting you in the match for the title will serve as an additional motivation boost 13, since this might be a unique opportunity to win that coveted title.

Experience

Caruana is not only incredibly strong – but he is also a very experienced player. This will already be his 5th Candidates Tournament and he also has experience when it comes to playing for the title of the World Champion. 

Head-to-head against the other participants

Caruana’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

  • Caruana vs. Nepomniacthchi: +1-1=13
  • Caruana vs. Nakamura: +8-9=33
  • Caruana vs. Firouzja: +5-1=6
  • Caruana vs. Vidit: +0-0=1 
  • Caruana vs. Praggnanandhaa: +1-0=3
  • Caruana vs. Gukesh: +1-1=1
  • Caruana vs. Abasov: +1-1=0 14

From Caruana’s head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

  • there is a staggering difference in the number of games Caruana has played against Nepomniachtchi, Nakamura and Firouzja and the rest of the field. I was extremely surprised by the fact he has only played a single classical game against Vidit. 
  • Caruana only has a positive score against two players in the field – Praggnannadhaa (whom he beat in Tata Steel 2022 when Prag was younger – and weaker) and Firouzja – who does seem to be his “client”. 
  • Caruana might experience some difficulty against Nakamura, who has beaten him in their last three classical encounters – at FIDE Grand Swiss, Norway Chess 2023 and in the 2nd half of the previous Candidates Tournament. Although it has to be noted that Fabi was Black in all these games and that he also scored a victory with White in the 1st half of that very same Candidates Tournament.
  • His loss against Gukesh happened at the 2022 Chess Olympiad where Gukesh played the tournament of his life and where Caruana wasn’t at his best, while he beat him at Tata Steel 2023. I don’t think these games will be of that much relevance in their upcoming encounter.
  • Caruana hasn’t played any games against the other participants in 2024, since he skipped Tata Steel Masters and since none of them 15 participated in the recently concluded American Cup 2023.

Thus, even though head-to-head results are not particularly in Caruana’s favour, due to the limited sample of games against half of the field, the limited amount of games played against the other participants very recently, and due to the fact the Candidates is a completely new tournament, I do think these “statistics” are not that relevant. 

Given Caruana’s “pedigree”, his recent form and experience, it is hard not to consider him as one of the main favourites of the event. 

Ian Nepomniacthchi

Strength/Form

Just like Fabiano Caruana, Ian Nepomniachtchi has been one of the best players in the world for quite some time now. He is capable of beating anyone in the world. At his peak, Nepo is perhaps even more scary than Caruana. 16 Not only is he a rather aggressive player – he also has the tendency to move very fast, putting a lot of pressure on the opponents, both on the board and on the clock.

When he is “on”, this can work wonderfully – which was especially apparent in the last Candidates tournament, which he won in a very convincing manner. Nepo is the type of “streaky” player who can suddenly start amassing wins and “running away” with the tournament.

On the other hand, due to his style, clock handling and emotional approach to the game, Nepo can equally easily go on a “negative” streak if things are not working out for him. Historically speaking, he has always been struggling with consistency, which is why his historical peak is much lower than, say, Caruana’s. As a matter of fact, he has never crossed the elite 2800 rating barrier, with his peak rating standing at 2795. Put simply, his level of play and stability varies a lot, which was very apparent in his recent World Chess Championship match against Ding.

Nepo’s form has also been far from stellar in recent times. Even though he hasn’t played a lot after his match against Ding, the tournaments he did play in didn’t quite go his way, to put it mildly:

Experience

On the other hand, Nepo is one of the more experienced players in this – relatively young – field. Given his experience in the World Chess Championship matches and his back-to-back wins in the previous two Candidates, his fans can hope he will be able to utilize his experience to find his best form and go for a “three-peat”. 

Head-to-head against the other participants

Nepo’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

  • Nepomniachtchi vs. Caruana: +1-1=13
  • Nepomniachtchi vs. Nakamura: +2-3=7
  • Nepomniachtchi vs. Firouzja: +4-3=2
  • Nepomniachtchi vs. Vidit +2-0=5
  • Nepomniachtchi vs. Praggnanandhaa: +0-0=2
  • Nepomniachtchi vs. Gukesh: +0-1=1
  • Nepomniachtchi vs. Abasov: +0-0=1

From Nepo’s head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

  • just like Caruana, Nepo has played a lot of games with three participants in the tournament, and very few games with four participants in the tournament
  • Nepo doesn’t have an overwhelming plus score against any of the participants (his +2 score against Vidit can hardly be characterized as such)
  • Nepo doesn’t have an overwhelming negative score against any of the participants, either.
  • Nepo hasn’t played that many games against the other participants in recent times

In Nepo’s case, I would attribute even less significance to the head-to-head scores than in Caruana’s case. I do think his result will mainly depend on his form in the tournament. On the basis of the recent results, his fans don’t have a lot of ground for optimism. But given his experience and the fact he will probably be extremely motivated, it wouldn’t be a surprise if he just wins the entire event, given how strong he is at his very best.

All in all, I think he will do either very well, or rather poorly. This is the main reason why I have decided to come up with two predictions instead of just one at the end of this article.

Hikaru Nakamura

Strength/Form

Hikaru Nakamura has been a well-established elite player for more than a decade. Apart from Fabiano Caruana, he is the only player who firmly held 2nd place on the rating list –  reaching a peak of 2816 in October 2015. 18 I do think he is one of those players who had 19 World Championship potential in terms of pure raw talent/chess-playing strength. 20

With that being said, in recent years 21 Nakamura has “semi-retired” from competitive chess and significantly reduced his activity in order more time for his streaming career. One would expect this change of priorities to negatively affect his results – as well as his rating. Whenever he comes out to play, people predict his lack of practice and lack of hours due to streaming obligations is going to tell.

Yet miraculously, nothing of the sort has happened. Nakamura has not only managed to maintain his level – but even improved upon it. Ever since 2022, he has been very successful in virtually every event he participated in:

  • FIDE Grand Prix 2022: participated in leg 1 and leg 3, won 25 rating points, qualified for the Candidates
  • FIDE Candidates 2022: scored 7.5/14, won 8 rating points, almost won 2nd place and qualified for the World Chess Championship match
  • American Cup 2023: won the event after beating Semian and Dominguez in classical portion and So in the tiebreak. Won 7 rating points. 
  • Norway Chess 2023: Won the event and 12 rating points.
  • FIDE World Cup 2023: Perhaps the only event that can be labelled as “unsuccessful” in the two-year period. After beating Karthik in the rapid tiebreak and Gledura in the classical portion, Nakamura was eliminated by Praggnandhaa in the rapid tiebreak. Lost 7 classical rating points.
  • Qatar Masters 2023: Scored 6.5/9, lost -2.40 rating points. Not a great event, but not a disastrous one, either.
  • FIDE Grand Swiss 2023: Scored 8/11, won 10 rating points, qualified for the Candidates.

This series of great results increased his rating to 2789, which is currently sufficient for the 3rd place in the world 22

(Nakamura’s rating progress since January 2023. Source: Nakamura’s FIDE profile)

Thus, it is fair to say Nakamura comes to the Candidates in great shape. Even though he has played only 3 classical games this year, his comparative lack of practice didn’t seem to be an issue in the past – and there is no reason to assume it will be an issue this time. 23 

I do feel he will be very motivated for this event since becoming a World Champion would further improve his own “brand”. And playing against Ding Liren is arguably the chance of a lifetime to win that title!

Experience

Nakamura is not only very strong, but he is also very experienced. As one of the older participants, he already has a number of elite events under his belt. He has also participated in two Candidates tournaments – back in 2016 24 and in the most recent one in 2022, where only the last-round loss to Ding prevented him from winning the 2nd place and qualifying for the match against Nepomniachtchi. 

Given he already mentioned that he used his negative result from 2016 to approach 2022 differently, we can say he learned from his experience. How much of a role it will play this time – remains to be seen.

Head-to-head against the other participants

Nakamura’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

  • Nakamura vs. Caruana: +9-8=33
  • Nakamura vs. Nepomniachtchi: +3-2=7
  • Nakamura vs. Firouzja: +1-0=2
  • Nakamura vs. Vidit: +0-0=2
  • Nakamura vs. Praggnananadhaa: +0-0=2
  • Nakamura vs. Gukesh: +1-0=0
  • Nakamura vs. Abasov +1-0=0

From Nakamura’s head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

  • Naka is the only player who has a positive score with 5 of the other participants (albeit a relatively “small” one)
  • he has played a lot of games against Caruana and Nepo and very few games against the rest of the field. I was somewhat surprised by the relatively low amount of encounters he has had with Firouzja. 
  • it has to be said that he hasn’t played against Nepomniachtchi a lot in recent years. Their last two classical games happened in the 2022 Candidates. Hikaru had some chances in his White game, while the second game featured the disgraceful “Berlin” draw
  • his recent games against the other participants do give him a lot of reason for optimism. As mentioned above, he has beaten Caruana in their last three encounters – although he had White pieces in all these games. He has also beaten Gukesh and Firouzja relatively recently in Norway Chess 2023. And most recently, he won a game against Nijat Abasov in the German Bundesliga where he blundered in the opening and was just a pawn down. 25

All in all, I think Nakamura’s recent form, his positive head-to-head score against the other participants (especially in recent times), the fact he has done well in almost every post-epidemic event, and his very solid and reliable opening repertoire will outweigh his comparative “lack of practice”. I don’t see a reason not to predict he will again do well. 

With that being said, I don’t quite see him winning the Candidates, simply because I do consider Caruana and Nepo to be stronger when they are “on”. I have, therefore, predicted him to win the 2nd or the 3rd place in the event. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if he did go all the way, given all the nerves involved and his “I don’t care” attitude. 26

Alireza Firouzja

Strength/Form

Alireza Firouzja is widely regarded as one of the greatest talents our game has ever seen. Even though he is only 21, he has been a top player for at least 5 years – ever since he first broke the 2700 rating barrier at the age of 16. He is also the youngest player in history to break the 2800 barrier – a feat he managed to achieve in December 2021, at the age of 18. Given all the accomplishments, it is not surprising he has been regarded as “The Chosen One” – or the legitimate successor of Magnus Carlsen.

However, this is easier said than done. So far, Firouzja hasn’t come close to participating in a World Championship Match. True, he did qualify for the previous Candidates tournament, but with the final result of 6/13, he was nowhere close the first two places.

In recent times, a lot of questions regarding Firouzja’s motivation/dedication have appeared in chess circles. The truth is – in last few years, Alireza has played very little classical chess. After achieving the rating of 2804 in December 2021, Firouzja wouldn’t play a single tournament until Candidates 2022 – which happened in June. 27

A similar story happened in 2023, as Firouzja didn’t play a single classical game in the first six months of the year. Furthermore, the events he participated in in the second half of the year didn’t quite go the way he would like. After a reasonable performance in Superbet Chess Classic in June, Alireza would have a pretty bad Norway Chess 2023, and disastrous Grand Swiss 2023 and Sinequfield Cup 2023.

The rating losses in the last two events seriously jeopardized his rating spot/participation in the Candidates, which ultimately prompted him to organize the aforementioned matches in Chartres/play in an open tournament in Rouen and cause a fair bit of drama at the end of last year.

On the other hand, events in December did demonstrate that Alireza is still pretty much thinking about chess, despite the fact he has also started studying fashion design in Paris in the meantime. In his most recent event in Tata Steel 2024, he did do reasonably well, scored 7.5/13, played some uncompromising, fighting chess, and reminded us of “the Alireza of old”, at times. However, his uncompromising style is often a double-edged blade, as he also suffered some pretty bad losses, such as in his games against Vidit or Ju Wenjun.

Experience

Even though he is still extremely young, I think we have to count Alireza among the more experienced participants. Not only has he been a part of the elite for longer than, say, Gukesh, Praggnanandhaa – and even Vidit. But apart from Caruana, Nakamura, and Nepomniachtchi, he is the only player who has already participated in a Candidates tournament.

His fans can hope he has learned from his experience and that he will use the knowledge to have a better result this time. 

Head-to-head against the other participants

Firouzja’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

  • Firouzja vs. Caruana: +1-5=6
  • Firouzja vs. Nepomniachtchi: +3-4=2
  • Firouzja vs. Nakamura: +0-1=2
  • Firouzja vs. Vidit: +0-2=1
  • Firouzja vs. Praggnanandhaa: +0-0=2
  • Firouzja vs. Gukesh: +1-1=1
  • Firouzja vs. Abasov: +2-0=1

From his head-to-head scores, we can observe:

  • Firouzja’s head-to-head score doesn’t inspire much confidence. He has a negative score against four other participants and has been particularly struggling against Caruana, who not only has a large plus score against him but who has also beaten him twice with Black (!!) in their most recent encounters – at Norway Chess 2023 and Sinquefield Cup 2023. 
  • He also lost quite badly to Vidit in Tata Steel Masters 2024
  • Firouzja also lost his “mini-matches” to Nepomniachtchi and Nakamura in the last Candidates tournament
  • He does have a positive score against Abasov and an equal score against two other “youngsters”

All in all, Firouzja’s placement was incredibly hard to predict. On one hand, his form hasn’t been stellar in the last few months – and his mind seemingly wasn’t fully focused on chess. On the other hand, everybody knows he is an enormous talent with enormous potential who already has a lot of experience playing at the top level. Given that he has been seemingly fully focusing on chess again, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume he might be the “surprise” of the tournament.

After some thinking, however, I have decided to put him in the middle of the tournament table. I do think his sharp and uncompromising style will lead to a number of decisive games – but I also think he will experience some bad losses because of it. Even though we shouldn’t read too much into the results of Tata Steel, I can envision his Candidates’ tournament following a similar trajectory. 

Although I can also envision him just winning a bunch of games and qualifying for the match if he brings his absolute best.

Santosh Gujrathi Vidit

Strength/Form

Santos Gujrathi Vidit is a unique player in the field, in the sense that he might be the only player 28 who hasn’t had a meteoric rise to the heights of top-level chess. Even though he was the World U14 Champion, he became the grandmaster at the “late” age of 19. 29 And even though he broke the 2700 rating barrier at the age of 23 and has been floating in the 2700-2730 range ever since – he hasn’t managed to break to the very elite and participate in that many top-level events.

Until recently. 

With a series of good results in 2023, Vidit not only reached the peak rating of 2747. But also managed to qualify for the Candidates for the very first time in his life – at the age of 29 – with a fantastic performance at the FIDE Grand Swiss 2023. 

Vidit also continued his form at the beginning of 2024, with a very good performance at Tata Steel 2024. True, his most recent event in Prague didn’t go that well, to put it mildly. But I wouldn’t pay to much significance to it, since his mind was almost certainly on the Candidates already. 

Therefore, I think Vidit is coming to the Candidates in good form and his motivation must be at an all-time high.

Experience

Despite his age and the fact he is among the older participants in the tournament, Vidit doesn’t have that much experience playing at this level. Not only will this be his first Candidates tournament, but I was also unable to find many top-level closed round-robin events where he participated30 (apart from Tata Steel 2019, 2022, and 2024 and several issues of Prague Masters). 31

Head-to-head against the other participants

Vidit’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

  • Vidit vs. Caruana: +0-0=1
  • Vidit vs. Nepomniachtchi: +0-2=5
  • Vidit vs. Nakamura: +0-0=2
  • Vidit vs. Firouzja: +2-0=1
  • Vidit vs. Praggnanandhaa: +3-3=1
  • Vidit vs. Gukesh: +0-0=2
  • Vidit vs. Abasov: +0-2=1

From the head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

  • as indirectly hinted above, despite being a 2700+ player for 6 years, Vidit has played a remarkably small amount of games against top players such as Caruana and Nakamura. 
  • I was also surprised to see only 2 classical games against his compatriot Gukesh – but also how bloodthirsty his battles with Prag have been, considering the relatively “solidity” of both players
  • Vidit has had good results against Firouzja in the past, but he has also suffered some painful losses against Abasov – most notably in the World Cup 2023. This prevented Vidit from securing the Candidates spot at the time. We will see how relevant these past scores will be in the upcoming event, but they might play a psychological role.

All in all, despite his great preparation and impressive and inspiring work ethic that allowed him to achieve the greatest success of his career relatively late, I think players such as Caruana, Nepo and Nakamura are stronger and more experienced. And that “youngsters” such as Gukesh, Firouzja or Praggnannadhaa are more likely to be the “surprise” of the tournament. 

I am also a bit unsure how well will Vidit deal with the tension. In the past, he did seem to collapse under pressure, as his aforementioned game against Abasov, or his most recent last-round loss against Wei Yi at Tata Steel demonstrate. 32

Thus, all things considered, have decided to put Vidit on the 6th place in my prediction. This may seem a bit harsh, but I would be genuinely surprised to see him in the upper half of the tournament table.

Whether this statement will make me like an absolute fool after the tournament, remains to be seen.

Praggnanandhaa Rameshbabu 

Strength/Form

We will continue our exploration of the “Indian trio” by taking a closer look at the 2nd youngest participant in this Candidates tournament, Praggnanandhaa Rameshbabu. Considering how long he has been around and how well-known he is, it is easy to forget Prag is only 19. 

However, despite the fact he became the International Master at the age of 10 and the 2nd youngest GM at the age of 12, 33Prag’s rise to the top wasn’t as meteoric and sudden as one would expect. Back in 2020 – just before the pandemic – he was “only” rated at 2600. And even though he did “explode” to a certain extent in the post-COVID years, he was struggling to break the magical 2700 barrier and seemed to be somewhat overshadowed by the likes of Erigaisi and Gukesh. Not to mention Firouzja. 34 

This all changed in the second half of 2023 when Prag suddenly started breaking through. First, he finally broke the 2700 barrier with a fantastic performance at the Dr.Hetenyi Geza Super GM Memorial. He followed that up with a historic, remarkable performance at the World Cup 2023, where he reached the final after eliminating Lagarde, Navara, Nakamura (!), Berkes, Erigaisi, and Caruana, gaining an additional 20 rating points and qualifying for the Candidates.

His successful performances in the Spanish League and Tata Steel Masters 2024 further elevated his rating to an all-time high of  2747 and further complicating the eternal battle for the Indian number one. 

(Praggnanandhaa’s rating progress since January 2023. Source: Prag’s FIDE profile)

Prag also performed very well at the recently concluded Prague Masters 2024,35 where he scored 5/9  and finished ahead of Gukesh and Vidit. He is, therefore, entering the Candidates in very good form and will surely be motivated to make the most of this opportunity.

Experience

On the other hand, due to his youth and the fact he has only recently increased his rating to the top 20 level, Prag has had limited experience in top classical events and this is also his very first Candidates. As we have seen with Alireza in 2022 – this inexperience might play a role. Although one could also make an argument “The Indian school of chess” is much less prone to tilting and playing bullet until 6 am during such an important event. 

Prag has always struck me as an incredibly mature and composed person. He also seems to be able to deal with the pressure extremely well, as his fantastic World Cup run demonstrates. We will see whether his composure and nerves will be able to compensate for the comparative lack of experience. And whether he will be able to display the same level he displayed in the World Cup/recent months.

Head-to-head against the other participants

Praggnanandhaa’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

  • Praggnananadhaa vs. Caruana: +0-1=3
  • Praggnanandhaa vs. Nepomniachtchi: +0-0=2
  • Praggnanandhaa vs. Nakamura: +0-0=2
  • Praggnanandhaa vs. Firouzja: +0-0=2
  • Praggnanandhaa vs. Vidit: +3-3=1
  • Praggnannadhaa vs. Gukesh: +2-2=3
  • Praggnananadhaa vs. Abasov: +0-0=0

From the head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

  • As expected, due to his limited experience, Prag has played very few games against most of the other participants in this event. He has never played a single classical game against Abasov.
  • The notable exceptions are his compatriots Vidit and Gukesh. I was surprised to see so many decisive games between these players. I guess it shows there is a fierce rivalry between every camaraderie. 36

All things considered, I have decided to pick Prag as the potential “dark horse” of the tournament. I do feel he might still be somewhat “underrated” and not lacking in pure chess-playing strength behind Caruana, Nepo, or Nakamura. I think his play has matured a lot and that he has become incredibly tough to beat, as his recent streak of 47 undefeated games demonstrates.

I do not quite think he has it in him to go all the way. But I most certainly see him in the upper half of the tournament table. Although the possibility of him winning shouldn’t be completely ruled out.

Gukesh Dommaraju

Strength/Form

Even though he is one year younger than his compatriot Pragnnanadhaa, Gukesh has arguably had a more meteoric rise to the world’s top. 

Even though he has been a child prodigy, a young GM, and all that jazz, Gukesh first made his name to the wider audience with his remarkable performance at the Chennai Olympiad 2022. Apart from securing him an individual gold medal, this result also enabled him to cross the 2700 rating barrier for the first time. Ever since, he has firmly established himself as one of the best players in the world, peaking at 2758 and overtaking Vishy Anand as the new Indian number 1 for a brief period.

True, after this peak, Gukesh did experience a certain dip in form (and rating) 37. In November and December 2023, he lost almost 40 rating points and dropped all the way to 2720, placing his participation in the Candidates into question. Only the last-minute effort and good performance in the Chennai Masters at the end of last year enabled him to snatch the Grand Circuit spot from Anish Giri.

It seems that this good result and qualification for the Candidates renewed his vigor/passion/motivation. Gukesh had a fantastic tournament at Tata Steel 2024, gaining 17 rating points and coming close to winning the entire thing. After picking a few additional points in Bundesliga, he is currently sitting at 2747 ELO – the same rating as his compatriots Vidit and Prag. 38

Thus, it seems Gukesh is back to his “old self” and fully ready for the Candidates.

Experience

Just like Prag – one thing Gukesh doesn’t have going his way is the experience. Even though he has reached 2700 sooner and participated in more elite events, I think this difference is negligible – especially since Gukesh wasn’t as active/successful in online events such as the Champions Chess Tour, compared to Prag.

As mentioned previously, it is a big question how relevant of a factor this is. But given that Gukesh is even younger than Prag, I wouldn’t be surprised if he succumbs to the pressure to the same extent Alireza succumbed back in 2022.

Head-to-head against the other participants

Gukesh’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

  • Gukesh vs. Caruana: +1-1=1
  • Gukesh vs. Nepomniachtchi: +1-0=1
  • Gukesh vs. Nakamura: +0-1=0
  • Gukesh vs. Firouzja: +1-1=1
  • Gukesh vs. Vidit: +0-0=2
  • Gukesh vs. Praggnananadhaa: +2-2=3
  • Gukesh vs. Abasov: +0-0=1

In order not to repeat myself, I will merely remark that Gukesh has not played many games against the other participants in the tournament and that his clashes with Prag have been incredibly bloodthirsty so far. However, it is hard to say how relevant all this will be, given that the Candidates will be a completely new tournament with an unprecedented amount of pressure. 

All in all, trying to predict how Gukesh would do was a particularly difficult task, given his youth, potential, and inexperience. Ultimately, I have decided to rate his chances lower compared to the “big three” (Caruana, Nepo, and Nakamura), the other two youngsters (Firouzja and Prag), but higher compared to Vidit and Abasov. 

Comparison with Prag was in particular, very challenging. But ultimately I have decided to give preference to Prag simply because of the nerves/pressure factor. I could remember a few instances where Gukesh was failed by his nervous system – most notably against Abdusattorov at the Chennai Olympiad 2022. But also against Wei Yi in the tiebreak of this year’s Tata Steel, to a certain extent. 

Given his youth, certain volatility, and very uncompromising approach, I feel there is a higher probability of him “going down in flames” compared to some other players. 

But whatever the case, one thing is certain – it will be extremely interesting to follow his games.

Nijat Abasov

Strength/Form

Last, but not least, we have arrived at the final and the lowest-rated participant in the Candidates tournament, Nijat Abasov. Even if you are not a big fan of my joke in the introduction,39 I am sure you will agree with my evaluation that Abasov is, objectively, the weakest player in the field, given that his peak rating of 2679 is far away from the CURRENT rating of all the other players and that he has never crossed the 2700-mark. 40 

True, his performance in the World Cup has demonstrated that rating is not everything and that Abasov can hold his own against the world’s very best. And that he also has very good nerves in high-pressure situations. 

But one could also make an argument this performance had little to do with classical chess, given that he won most of his matches in tiebreaks. And that the pressure was mostly on his higher-rated opponents, while he barely had anything to lose. 41

On the other hand, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since World Cup 2023. Ever since, Abasov’s form has been far from stellar, to put it mildly. In recent months, he has been “bleeding rating” on all fronts. Since November 2023, he has lost almost 50 rating points and is currently sitting at 2632 ELO, which is sufficient for the 110th place in the world.

(Abasov’s rating progress since January 2023. Source: Abasov’s FIDE profile)

Experience

Abasov is also not faring that well in the “experience” department. This will not only be his very first Candidates – but virtually his first-ever top event. He has very limited experience playing against top players – especially in events where they have been able to specifically prepare for him for many months. One would think superior preparation is something that distinguishes 2700+ and 2600+ players, although we will see how much of a role it will play.

Head-to-head against the other participants

One thing Abasov has going his way is the head-to-head score with other participants, which is as follows: 

  • Abasov vs. Caruana: +1-1=1
  • Abasov vs. Nepomniachtchi: +0-0=1
  • Abasov vs. Nakamura: +0-1=0
  • Abasov vs. Firouzja: +0-2=1
  • Abasov vs. Vidit: +2-0=1
  • Abasov vs. Praggnananadhaa: +0-0=0
  • Abasov vs. Gukesh: +0-0=1

A couple of observations:

  • Abasov has demonstrated he can hold his own against top players. In the World Cup, he beat both Vidit and Caruana in classical games
  • The number of games he has played against top players is fairly limited, though.
  • Most of these games happened in events such as World Cup, FIDE Grand Swiss or German Bundesliga, where time for preparation is rather limited
  • His most recent games against the other participants – the one against Firouzja from FIDE Grand Swiss 2023 and the one against Nakamura from Bundesliga 2024, don’t give him much reason for optimism. The latter one was especially painful, considering Abasov had a clear extra pawn after Nakamura mixed up the move order in the opening, as mentioned previously.

Thus, when you combine Abasov’s playing strength, recent form, and lack of experience, it is hard to imagine him not coming up last in this tournament. Even if he manages to repeat his form from the World Cup we take the whole “he-plays-without-pressure-while-others-have-to-score-points-against-him” point into consideration. 

After all – you might recall that Kiril Alekseenko barely managed to avoid this fate in the 2020-2021 Candidates – and he was much less of an underdog. 42 

My Predictions

Variation A: Caruana in form, Nepo out of form

  1. Fabiano Caruana
  2. Hikaru Nakamura
  3. Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa
  4. Alireza Firouzja
  5. Dommaraju Gukesh
  6. Ian Nepomniachtchi
  7. Vidit Santosh Gujrathi
  8. Nijat Abasov

Variation B: Nepo in-form

  1. Ian Nepomniachtchi
  2. Fabiano Caruana
  3. Hikaru Nakamura
  4. Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa
  5. Alireza Firouzja
  6. Dommaraju Gukesh
  7. Vidit Santos Gujrathi
  8. Nijat Abasov

An Ethical Guide For Chess Players

The following article is a guest post by Nikolaos Ntirlis. Nikolaos is a strong correspondence player and a renowned book author and some of you might know him from his opening theory threads he regularly publishes on his X/Twitter.

But apart from being “the chess guy”, Nikolaos also has a profound interest in (business) philosophy and ethics. A couple of weeks ago, he reached out to me and expressed his interest in writing a guest post on the topic of ethical behavior within the chess world.  Since I have written about similar topics in the past, I thought it was an important and challenging topic, and since I had several positive interactions with Nikolaos in the past, I gladly accepted his offer. 

Once he delivered his work, I knew it was the right decision. Because the article in front of you was one of the most interesting and enlightening pieces of writing I have seen from someone within the chess world. 1 Apart from teaching me a lot about ethics and philosophy, it has also made me re-examine how I approach complex moral issues and made me realize they can be approached from many different angles.

I do hope you will find it as enlightening and interesting as I did. Or at the very least, that you will learn something new about giants such as Plato, Kant, or Aristotle.

And now, without further ado, I give it to Nikolaos.


Introduction

The Motivation For This Article

A typical day for a chess fan on Twitter these days seems to go like this:

  • Start scrolling
  • Read a few tweets about the new drama of the day
  • Become angry with the person who tweeted something controversial or with those who criticized them
  • Repeat the same cycle the next day…

I am certainly not the first one to notice it. The chess world is in a permanent state of controversy. The usual suspects these days are Hans Niemann, one of the biggest prospects of US chess right now, and the former world champion Vladimir Kramnik. But these controversies often involve a cast of characters ranging from Women Grandmaster Dina Belenkaya to the GOAT (?) Magnus Carlsen himself.

As these dramas unfold, everyone forms an instant opinion on who is right and who is wrong. But unsurprisingly, these opinions clash, with people found on both sides of the argument, disagreeing on the fundamental ethics of the situation. 

Even when they agree, they may have different reasons for their judgments. The next day, when a similar situation arises, the same individuals might evaluate the case differently, based on personal preferences and biases.

Chess fans are not unique in this regard. It is a common occurrence in every aspect of social life, both on social media and out of them (what some people call, real life). Think about the last time you found yourself among relatives, discussing politics, and you’ll know what I mean…

However, what sets chess players apart is their capacity to understand this: Ethics are similar to chess openings!

Over the centuries, a huge body of theory has been developed in a branch of philosophy called Ethics. In the same way we study a book or a course and learn the intricacies of the Spanish or Italian opening, we can study philosophy and ethics. We can use the tools that great thinkers have developed to analyze a chess drama and evaluate, similarly to Stockfish, who is right or wrong. 

Ethics, along with another branch of philosophy called aesthetics, is often referred to as ‘value theory’ because it helps assess the value of how good or bad something is.

Imagine something like this:

Imagine being able to evaluate the above argument in terms of “centipawns” with an engine called Ethicsfish. Please email me if you want to invest in creating such an engine!

So, I decided to write this article to discuss the analytical tools that ethical theories like consequentialism, deontological ethics, contractarianism, and virtue theory can offer us.

We’ll see specific examples and analyze them with the help of these tools, like a grandmaster scrutinizing a complex position, and see how they might offer clarity amidst the chaos.

The goal of this article is twofold. Primarily, I aim to inspire you to examine moral issues from diverse perspectives. As is often the case with philosophy, the process of studying how great minds approached and analyzed a particular topic can be intellectually gratifying. However, at the end of the day, we can adopt the frameworks or aspects that resonate most with us. So, I invite you to open your mind, analyze moral dilemmas through the lenses of different ethical theories, and ultimately retain what makes the most sense to you.

My second goal is a bit riskier and more challenging. Still, I want to accept the invitation from my editor to attempt to provide you with a formula, an algorithm of sorts, that you can employ when analyzing real-life moral dilemmas.

Of course, in the modern ongoing discussion between philosophers, many (and much more sophisticated) such formulas get created. But, I think that it will be instructive to see an amateur philosopher like me, trying to construct one. It will be a similar experience to watching someone streaming their chess games online. The games are not perfect, but you can see the struggle of someone who possibly is a bit ahead of their audience in terms of knowledge and experience. 

Thinking about Ethics – Enter Metaethics!

Before we start the discussion on ethics – the branch of philosophy that studies what is right and wrong behavior, let’s take a minute to talk about metaethics, the study of the very foundations of morality itself (yes, it’s going to be that kind of journey…).

Among those without academic training in ethics 2, the most common metaethical view is the belief that there are moral facts, more or less the same way there are scientific facts.

In this view, some things are just wrong, and others are indisputably right. That’s what the gut intuition of most of us tells us. That’s how we understand the world since we were kids.

However, that’s one of the easiest things to argue against. If there were just moral facts, where would they come from? Maybe that’s an easy answer if you are a religious person, but it is a subject of constant debate. 3

Can we test and falsify these moral facts as we do with scientific facts? And, regarding scientific facts, we can arrive at some consensus. Why can’t we do the same with ethics? 4

But, if there are no moral facts, what does this mean? Could two moral views be correct at the same time? And what are they based on? Our feelings? 5 Our reason? Our social environment?

This is often called the “Grounding Problem” in Ethics. We need some rule, some assumption, something to hold on to, on which we can build our ethical theory. That’s what thinkers have done for thousands of years now. So, each of the theories, the analytical tools we’ll talk about, has a foundation. If you don’t accept this foundation, the whole theory collapses. 6

So, let’s dive into the ethical theories…

Four Big Ethical Theories

Consequentialism – The Sicilian Defense

  • Foundation: What matters is the outcomes of actions.
  • Why similar to the Sicilian: In the Sicilian, we tend to have complex positions where the consequences of every move must be carefully calculated.

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates actions based on their consequences. Nothing is right or wrong on its own, and intention doesn’t matter. All that matters is the outcomes. It is a simple theory to understand, and incredibly practical.  

Consequentialism is becoming the dominant framework in domains like public policy and business management today. 7 It is very convenient to link it with finance and economic indicators and measure its results.

If you feel that your government is frequently making ethically wrong decisions, not caring about certain groups of people, for example, that’s because most administrations today adopt a consequentialist perspective. But, be careful. This doesn’t mean that you are always right, thinking that an administration is wrong. It might be the case of missing the whole picture, and not understanding the overall consequences. 8

This theory is often associated (or confused) with utilitarianism, a specific form of consequentialism that says the right action is the one that maximizes happiness for most people (or minimizes the pain). The idea of measuring things based on pleasure and pain is called hedonism.

So, consequentialism + hedonism = utilitarianism. 9

Consequentialism’s main critiques point out that the theory may lead to ignoring the rights or well-being of some for the benefit of the many.

But on the personal level, there is another, at least, equally serious issue. In complex situations, it is very difficult to assess the implications of an action. We simply don’t have access to the full picture, no matter how hard we try.

To understand this theory, let’s look at it through the lens of a famous philosophical dilemma: the trolley problem.

The trolley problem and consequentialism

The basic scenario of the trolley problem is that a runaway trolley is heading toward five people who are tied to the tracks, and the only way to save them is to divert the trolley to another track where one person is tied.

You are the one who can pull a lever that will switch the trolley to the other track, killing one person but saving five. Would you do it?

The theory requires that you pull the lever. You kill one person to save five. 

But, doesn’t this mean that you are choosing to take the life of an innocent person? After all, it’s not your fault that the situation is so terrible. You shouldn’t have to get blood on your hands to try and fix it. Right?

So, you see that consequentialism is a very demanding moral theory. We live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things. And, if we’re the ones who are there, and we can do something to make things better, we must. Even if that means getting our hands dirty.

But, things are not always that simple. What if this one person we decided to kill is important, let’s say an influential scientist, or has a family and kids that will suffer from this loss, while the five people are old and sick with no relatives left? In this case, wouldn’t the consequences be worse if we switched the trolley to that one person? How could we know? 10

The trolley problem sounds too abstract and hypothetical? Let’s try to take a step further and apply the principles of consequentialism to a real-life example from the chess world.

Kramnik and the cheating problem in chess 

Should Kramnik point out potential cheaters, risking some false positives?11

A consequentialist will argue that such an important figure has so much power in the community that he can change things for the better. And even if some people get negatively affected, we should judge his actions based on the overall outcome and if that will be positive, for example, if the cheating problem in chess gets reduced or solved. 12

As you can see, that’s much more difficult for an individual to do than say a big organization like chess.com or FIDE. As mentioned above, it is very difficult for an individual to assess the implications of an action in a highly complex situation. A big organization might be able to do a more informed measurement of these outcomes.

Deontological Ethics – The Nimzo Indian Defense 

  • Foundation: Moral rules derived from reason which we should feel a duty to follow. 
  • Why Nimzo-Indian: Logical, principled, where the moves are guided by sound reasoning.

When you ask someone why they think a certain decision or action is bad, you might expect a profound answer. But often, you’ll get a “because it’s… bad.” And if you feel that that’s a lame answer, according to deontological ethics, it’s not!

“Deontological” comes from the Greek word “deon,” meaning obligation. It’s a branch of ethics that’s all about duty and rules. It insists that you should always do what’s right, no matter the consequences.

But where does this sense of obligation come from? If you believe in God, then this question has an easy answer. That’s what it is called “Divine Command Theory”. However, philosophers have been poking holes in this theory since ancient times. 13

Consequently, even theologians found ‘Divine Command Theory’ lacking, leading them to develop alternatives such as Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory. 14 This theory has become the foundation of Catholic Ethics to this day.

But, deontological theories based on divine or natural definitions of right and wrong are way older than that, even older than philosophy itself. Take Homer’s epics, for instance, where doing the right thing was all about bravery and heroism, and about keeping the cosmic balance—a central theme in many ancient cultures. 

The issue here is that philosophy is essentially humanity’s noble quest to solve problems using reason and logic, rather than relying on faith or superstition. So, we’re focusing on ethical systems grounded in reason here. And surprisingly, ethical systems that are based on the “obligation of doing the right thing” that are purely based on reason, are a much more recent development.

Typically, deontological ethics is connected with one name: Immanuel Kant. And I have to admit that despite my best efforts, I don’t understand Kant. So, take the following with a pinch of salt—I might be missing the mark. 15

Obligations based on reason

Kant was all about morality being rooted in reason and reason alone. Not feelings, not preferences, not cultural backgrounds, and certainly not divine memos. He believed that an action is morally sound only if it’s done out of duty, not self-interest or for any potential outcomes.

He laid down his moral laws, the “categorical imperatives,” which are like the universal rules everyone should follow, no matter their wishes or situations.

Two of the most famous such laws, in the way I understand them, are:

“Live by the rule that you’d be okay with everyone else following too.” 16

Consider a chess game where using an engine will give you an edge. But, what if everyone did the same? The game would be ruined. According to Kant, that’s why cheating at chess is a no-go. 

That’s a very practical way to understand if something is right or wrong. That’s typically one of the lessons on morality we learned from our parents and teachers during childhood. 17 

“Always treat people as valuable in themselves, not just as tools to get what you want.” 18

This means seeing yourself and others as individuals with worth and dignity, not just as a means to your ends. 19

Kant also defined what gives human beings dignity. And that’s autonomy.  Think about it this way. What happens when we lie to someone? We’re messing with someone’s ability to decide based on truth. Or because we want to use someone to do something for us. Intentions are a central part of deontological ethics. The reason we do something, matters.

I didn’t use the example of lying out of an accident. Kant was famously rigid in his stance against lying, arguing that it is never morally acceptable, even in situations where lying might prevent harm. 

The catch with deontological ethics is this: if you stick to the rules without weighing the consequences, you could inadvertently cause more harm than good. It’s a common critique that such unwavering commitment to rules, regardless of the outcome, can sometimes lead to results that clash with our innate sense of morality. 

Are pre-arranged draws in chess immoral? 

Are pre-arranged draws in chess immoral? To answer this, we can apply Kant’s categorical imperatives to see if such actions hold up morally.

First Imperative: “Live by the rule that you’d be okay with everyone else following too.”

If every player pre-arranged draws, the essence of competition would vanish, rendering a chess tournament meaningless. It’s pretty clear that if such behavior were universal, it would undermine the very nature of the sport.

Second Imperative: “Always treat people as valuable in themselves, not just as tools to get what you want.”

That’s a bit tougher to apply, but one possible way to think of it is that pre-arranging a draw could be seen as using the opponent merely as a means to an end. That’s securing a favorable outcome without the genuine effort of play. It doesn’t matter if both sides do it for the same reason. The reason is bad, so the action is immoral.

This fails to respect the dignity and autonomy of both players as rational agents capable of competing.

In conclusion, pre-arranged draws in chess seem to fail Kant’s moral test on both counts. They disrupt the integrity of the game and treat participants not as autonomous individuals but as tools for achieving a predetermined result. Therefore, from a Kantian perspective, pre-arranged draws could indeed be considered immoral.

Still, many chess players don’t think of it this way. I think that the next ethical theory may explain this phenomenon.

Contractarianism – The Slow Italian Game 

  • Foundation: It’s based on an unspoken social contract that dictates moral conduct.
  • Why Slow Italian:  It’s like this slow-paced Italian opening where players agree not to launch into early attacks, following instead established opening principles for developing and castling early.

People often think of contractarianism as a political idea, but it’s also useful when talking about ethics. 

It suggests that everyone in society has an unspoken agreement to follow the rules. This may refer to laws, customs, or traditions that guide their interactions.

Take the handshake before a game as an example. Expecting a handshake before a chess game is a tradition that goes beyond the official rules. It’s been a sign of good sportsmanship for ages, showing respect for the game and the opponent. If someone refuses to shake hands, it’s seen as disrespectful and leaves a sour feeling among players. 

However, contractarianism isn’t without its critics. It’s been pointed out that it fails to account for societal evolution. If we always follow tradition, and that’s what is considered the right thing to do, then how can societies become better? 

The social “contract” is believed to benefit the members of the society it serves, but as societies evolve, these agreements may become outdated. Yet, there’s often a sense of obligation to adhere to them.

When Kramnik had to justify why top-level players don’t think that pre-arranged draws are a bad thing, that’s what he came up with:

This is contractarianism. Top-level players have agreed that this is accepted behavior. Everyone has done this from time to time and expects everyone else to do this from time to time as well. 

Kramnik linked to the following article, where opinions on the matter are collected from top-GMs. For example, Grischuk offered another contractarian perspective:

“I don’t see an issue with them, honestly […] It’s part of chess culture for a century at least”. 

By now, you can see how different theories may attach a different moral value to an action. 

  • For a contractarian, pre-arranged draws are acceptable.
  • For a Kantian, that’s completely unacceptable.
  • A consequentialist might evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. For example, a pre-arranged draw in a critical match could be deemed unethical, but the same action between two hobbyists at a local tournament might be considered harmless.

Contractarian thought fundamentally examines the reciprocal relationship and obligations between the individual and the community they are part of.

On one hand, by living within and benefiting from an organized community, individuals are expected to uphold certain moral duties and responsibilities as their part of the social contract. 20

On the other hand, this social contract is a two-way street – just as individuals have duties to the community, the community itself has a profound moral obligation to respect the fundamental rights, and dignity of each individual member.

So, we should choose. Who comes first? The individual, or the community? Luckily, most philosophers agree on that. The guarantying of inviolable individual rights should come first.

Virtue Theory – The Ruy Lopez 

  • Foundation: Developing good character traits
  • Why the Ruy: Like the Ruy Lopez, virtue theory is a classic. It’s been around since the start of philosophical thinking, but it still is trendy and influential. 

Let’s say a friend asks you for help. What would you do?

  • From a consequentialist view, you’d want to think about the possible results of helping them. If assisting is unlikely to cause harm and could lead to good outcomes, then you should probably help.
  • Taking a deontological approach, you might be guided by the moral principle of treating others how you would want to be treated yourself, meaning helping your friend in need.

On the other hand, a virtue ethicist would think that helping a friend is the obvious thing to do. It is a matter of compassion and generosity. Why should we make any calculations?  

From a virtue ethics perspective, the primary consideration is not the consequences of the action or adhering to a moral rule, but what an action says about one’s character.

Just like you don’t think about breathing or playing the first moves of your favorite opening, try to be a person who does good things without having to think hard about it.

Virtue ethics is just a different way to see things. And, as we’ll see, this can solve many practical problems.

Consequentialism, deontological ethics and virtue theory

For the most part, consequentialism, deontological ethics, and virtue theory agree on what’s right or wrong. They may not agree on the “why” and the “how you get there”, but for any reasonably simple real-life situation, choosing just one of these theories to guide your thinking, will be enough.  Also, each one of these theories does consider what is foundational for another one, just not as something central.

For example, in the Kantian approach, there is space to consider outcomes, as there is space to consider individual rights for a consequentialist. Just, these considerations are not the central part, the foundations of these theories.

Most discussions in the academic sphere on ethics today revolve around the “outcome vs obligation” question, and what is the right mix. But in some other disciplines, virtue theory is the central topic of discussion. Some notable examples are psychology, education, and business. 21

As Kant is the main person who we should always mention when we discuss deontological ethics, for Virtue Theory, this person is Aristotle, who taught what we will discuss below around 350 BCE, or about 2,400 years ago. 

Aristotle and virtue theory

First of all, why should we work daily to develop our character? According to Aristotle, that’s how we reach the state of “eudaimonia” (well-being). For the philosophers of Aristotle’s time 22, answering the question “how to live a happy life” had a central part in their thinking. They believed that people with good character are not only good about themselves but for everyone around them. So, there was a strong link between personal development and how this affects the society. 23 

Aristotle thought that human beings have a natural tendency to develop virtues24  that help them achieve eudaimonia. He classified them. The “cardinal virtues” that everyone should develop, are prudence, justice, temperance, and courage. You can choose to develop more,  those that make the most sense for you, but these four, are a must.

According to Aristotle, having the virtue of something sits at the middle end of two extremes which he called “vices”: one of excess and one of deficiency. 

For example, the virtue of courage is a mean between rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). 25

Socrates, before Aristotle, taught that virtue is a form of knowledge and that ignorance is the cause of wrongdoing. According to Socrates, when someone behaves immorally, he is doing it out of ignorance. He/she isn’t educated enough. So, instead of punishing this individual, they need to go back and learn what is good and bad. 

Aristotle disagreed with the idea of virtue = knowledge. He believed that becoming a virtuous person isn’t about reading books, but it means practice. To do rather than know.

He also suggested observing. To find “good influencers”. Those who have developed these virtues, and follow them as examples.

Discovering Your Values

Aristotle’s teachings are still relevant today. But, besides these basic virtues, we should create and use our own “ethical compass” by identifying our own set of virtues, or what we usually call them today: values. These values act as a personal guide, helping us when faced with moral dilemmas. And as Aristotle said, just defining them, isn’t enough. We need to work daily to develop them and live by them.

To identify your core values, reflect on moments when you felt particularly proud or ashamed. These feelings can reveal what truly matters to you.

Following Aristotle’s advice, consider the qualities of people you admire. Their guiding principles can help shape your own set of values.

Start by writing a comprehensive list. Initially, it’s okay for this list to be extensive. Gradually narrow it down to the 3-5 values that feel most authentic to you.

Once you’ve made your list, consult with trusted individuals, like friends or family. See if they associate these values with you when you share your list. If they don’t, it’s time to reassess. Are these values a true reflection of who you are? Why might others not perceive them in you?

This method is widely used in business management training 26 and by marketers when they’re defining a brand’s identity.

Companies need to set their values as well. I have learned through experience as a manager, that you cannot anticipate anything that can happen during the communication with a client, or inside a team. Companies have “standard operating procedures” (known as SOPs), but always something happens that gets you out of the normal procedure. What should you do then? This is when the company’s values come to the rescue! 27

Put simply, when things are unclear, following your values will guarantee that you will not mess up. Things might end up badly, but you’ll know that you did the best you could. From an ethical point of view, you did the right thing.  28

An Ethical Guide For Chess Players

So far in this article, I have described the analytical tools with which each of the different ethical theories described above provides us. I have also shown how these tools can be applied to analyze deep and complex issues and how different ethical theories can have different viewpoints regarding the morality of a specific issue.

In the final part of the article, I would like to try to go a step further and build upon these tools/theories to create an algorithm for the potential “EthicFish” engine, which would enable us to analyze and evaluate complex moral issues. And then apply that very same algorithm to a concrete, real-life example that caused a lot of controversy at the time.

Theoretical Framework: Nikos’ Step-By-Step Guide To Ethics

Step 1: Consequentialist Consideration

First, carefully consider the potential consequences of your action or decision on all those who may be affected. Strive to maximize overall well-being, minimize harm, and promote the greater good. 

However, if the outcomes are unclear or too difficult to predict, move to the next step.

Step 2: Deontological Principles

Apply the test of universalizability – could the reasons behind your action be willed as a universal law? Additionally, respect the autonomy, rights, and dignity of all persons involved. 

If these Kantian principles do not provide a clear resolution, proceed to the next part.

Step 3: Social Norms and Traditions

Examine relevant laws, cultural traditions, and established practices pertaining to the ethical dilemma. 

If this exploration still does not yield a satisfactory solution, advance to the final step.

Part 4: Personal Virtues and Values

Ultimately, draw upon your virtues, and values to guide your decision. Strive to act with integrity, compassion, and courage. If needed, seek advice from individuals you regard as morally exemplary.

Practical Application: How do female chess influencers promote chess?

To see how we can use the ethical guide described above in practice, let’s try to apply it to a real-life example. The following post on X by WGM Dina Belenkaya caused a lot of controversy at the time when it was posted and became a topic of many debates:

Should female chess influencers promote this type of content? Do they do it for the clicks and to get FanHouse subs, or to promote female chess players’ empowerment? Or we shouldn’t care, as they have the right to do whatever they want?

Let us use our ethical formula, to see if we can get an answer.

Step 1: Consequentialist Consideration

This type of content brings eyeballs to female chess. The above post had more than 600k impressions. That’s a positive. But, some female chess players didn’t feel well with it. Please remember, that if they were right to feel offended, or not, doesn’t matter at this point. What we know, is that a significant number of women didn’t like this content and expressed it openly.

Do we know if this post brought financial benefits to those involved? Directly, possibly yes, and that should be counted as a positive. Do we know if this had any measurable effects, positive or negative on the community of female players? That is much more difficult to judge. 

Different people will weigh differently the balance of the outcomes. I do think that the most significant element here is the number of people that saw the post, and the number of people that liked it (which was also big). 

But, even though I feel that so far we are on the positive side, let’s move on to the next step to see if this will offer us a different perspective.

Step 2: Deontological Principles

To apply Kant’s principles to this promotional post, we should ask:

  • Would it be acceptable for all influencers to promote content in the same manner?
  • Are the influencers respecting the autonomy, rights, and dignity of themselves and others? 
  • Are they treating themselves and their audience as ends in themselves, not merely as a means to gain followers or subscriptions?

Different people can argue about the answers to these questions. But, I accepted the risk of offering my point of view, so I’ll not back up now. 

I will say that for the first two questions, it is a clear “yes” for me.

But, for the third question, it feels to me that the answer is that the influencers involved, seem to want to use their post as a way to gain paid subscriptions. The reason I think this observation is fair is that the message has 1 photo and 2 sentences. One of the sentences is about following the influencers on their FanHouse profile.  This consists of 50% of the message they communicated.

If the message contained other elements, I would be less certain, but as things stand, I cannot but consider that the Kantian consideration makes this post fall somewhat on the negative side. 

However, we still don’t have clarity. Let’s continue then to the next step.

Step 3: Social Norms and Traditions

For this step, this is what we should consider:

  • Legal Framework. I do believe that there is nothing wrong here.
  • Cultural Expectations. What are the cultural attitudes towards the portrayal of women in media and sports within the community where the content is being shared? 
  • Industry Practices. What are the common practices within the chess community and the broader field of influencer marketing? Does the content adhere to or deviate from these established practices?

The contractarian perspective doesn’t strongly oppose the influencers’ approach, although it’s unusual to see prominent female chess players in such attire. While this is more common in other sports, society today isn’t generally shocked by women in lingerie. 

We’ll now consider the final step to see if it helps us reach a clearer conclusion.

Part 4: Personal Virtues and Values

For those who follow me on social media, you likely have an idea of the things that are important to me. I greatly value providing meaningful content to my audience, whether that’s sharing knowledge or practical advice. While I don’t oppose lighter, entertaining posts, I take issue with content that aims to draw attention to individuals solely based on their physical appearance rather than conveying a broader, positive message or highlighting a worthy cause.

“Girls do it better than Messi and Ronaldo” feels like a lost opportunity to me to highlight a bigger message about the multifaceted talents and creative power of women beyond just physical comparisons or objectification.  

So, ultimately, this post left a bitter taste in my mouth, but I have to admit that when I analyzed this with the help of all the tools presented here, my opinion became less strong. The above tools forced me to see different angles, and even consider at some point changing my opinion from a negative, to a positive one (although, never strongly positive). 

I hope that you were able to find the same exercise as useful and enlightening as it was for me.

Conclusion

That was a lengthy article covering many ethical concepts and examples. If you made it this far, congratulations!

As you saw, I personally lean more towards a consequentialist/utilitarian approach because “providing value” is one of my guiding principles. But I also recognize the importance of moral obligations, as well as how traditions significantly inform many people’s decisions.

Aristotle’s idea that shaping an ethical character is a constant, daily effort resonates with me. The tools examined here have helped me in this ongoing pursuit. Hopefully, they’ll aid you as well.

Lastly, I presented an amateur attempt to create a formula by combining core elements from different ethical theories into “Nikos Ethics.” I am not unhappy with what I came up with but don’t take that seriously. What you can do instead, is follow modern philosophers, and study their frameworks. Developing new approaches by synthesizing fundamental theories is central to modern ethics discussions.

See you on X, Facebook or LinkedIn when the next chess drama unfolds!

I Published A Course With Jan Gustafsson!

Introduction

On February 26th, 2024, one of the biggest, proudest moments of my professional life (so far) happened – the publication of the Chessable course Gustafsson’s Aggressive 1.e4 – Part 1, which I co-authored with none other but the renowned Grandmaster, commentator and opening theoretician, GM Jan Gustafsson.

To celebrate this moment and my part when it comes to the marketing of the course, I have decided to write an article in which I will talk about how the course came to be and what kind of lines and “style” a prospective student should expect out of it.

I hope you will enjoy it and find it useful.

Gustafsson’s Aggressive 1.e4 – Part 1

Basic Information About The Course?

Gustafsson’s Aggressive 1.e4 is a repertoire aimed at providing you with an overall 1.e4 repertoire. In the first part of this repertoire, we will be covering everything apart from the French, Caro-Kann, and the Sicilian. In other words, we are covering 1.e4 e5 complex and everything else Black can throw at us after 1.e4.

The course consists of:

  • 579 Lines/Variations available to the user to “train”
  • 59 Informational Variations
  • 37 Annotated Model Games
  • 166 Tactical and Strategic Puzzles
  • 285.175 Words
  • 20 hours and 28 minutes of video, presented by GM Jan Gustafsson

Which Lines Are Recommended In The Course?

A) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 the Italian with 3.Bc4 will be our choice

and now:

A1) After 3…Bc5, we will be going for the sharp Dubov Italian after 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.b4!?

A2) After 3…Nf6, we will be going for what I – for some reason – called the Three Knights Variation with 4.Ng5, when the principled line in the absolute mainline is 4…d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3!?

B) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 we will be going for 3.d4. In the absolute main line of the system after 3…Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxd7 Bxd7 Jan has decided to recommend the move 7.Nd2!?, which was used by Magnus in his World Chess Championship against Ian Nepomniachtchi. And Jan was a member of Magnus’ team!

C) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7, Jan has decided to go for the move 6.g3!?, which doesn’t look so aggressive at first, but can quickly lead to wild stuff after 6….d5 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bg2!?. Otherwise, we will want to secure a stable space advantage and slowly suffocate Black.

D) In the Philidor Hanham after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7, Jan has come up with a rare move 5.a4!?, seizing space on the queenside immediately. Once again, the idea is to suffocate Black. And if they play 5…a5 we go 6.g4!? and claim we are getting a better version of the 5.g4!? Gambit with the moves a4 and a5 included.

E) Against the Scandinavian Defence, we will be going for the absolute main variation with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 and play principled chess, since White has a good chance of seizing the initiative and fighting for the advantage without necessarily trying to sacrifice a pawn or do something crazy at all costs.

F) Against the Alekhine Defence, we have decided to go for the maximalist approach with the Four Pawns Attack, arising after 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4! This line is not very challenging, but also quite practical, since it significantly reduces Black’s options compared to the other variations of the Alekhine.

G) Against the Pirc/Modern, Jan has decided to go for the not-so-aggressive-looking Classical Variation after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 at first glance, this setup doesn’t fit into the repertoire with the word ‘Aggressive’ in the title. But it is a rather practical choice because it allows us to play it against both Pirc and Modern move orders. Besides, this setup still has a lot of ‘aggressive’ potential due to the possibility of advancing the e-pawn rather quickly. For example, one of the main variations of the Pirc complex arises after 4…Bg7 5.Be2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7.Re1 Nbd7 8.e5 Ng4 9.e6 where we once again sacrifice a pawn for long-term compensation, fully in the spirit of this repertoire.

I) Finally, the last two chapters deal with all the other 1st moves Black can throw at us after 1.e4, such as 1…Nc6, 1…b6, 1…a6 and many others. In these last two chapters, we didn’t try to reinvent the wheel but occupied the center and tried to play principled chess.

(Do note that all the other moves after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, as well nonsense such as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5?! or 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?! are also all covered)

What Is The Philosophy/Style Of The Course?

As the title of the course suggests and the lines above demonstrate, throughout this repertoire, Jan has tried to suggest combative and aggressive lines where White tries to pose immediate problems to the opponent and fight for the initiative from the get-go. Often, we should be willing to sacrifice at least one pawn to achieve our aims.

However, there are also places (most notably the Three Knights chapters) where we are the ones willing to grab some material and then fend off our opponent’s initiative. Although the positions are again crazy-looking and highly tactical, as the following example demonstrates:


The general idea was to avoid playing strategical positions and “typical” structures as often as possible, but rather to prefer a more concrete, move-by-move approach. The idea is to get our opponent into a position where the better-prepared player has better chances – and we hope that it will be us after going through the material in this repertoire.

Of course, as much as we try, it is not completely possible to avoid playing quieter positions and typical structures. Most notably in the Scandinavian chapters, where one often gets the structure where White has the pawn on d4 and the opponent has the pawns on e6 and c6 (albeit usually a good version). Some positional variations can also be seen in the Pirc, Open Philidor, and Philidor Hanham chapters, but we don’t necessarily mind entering a positional variation if it is considered to be better for White.

Can I Expect To Obtain A Won Position Directly Out Of The Opening?

Depends on the opening we are talking about. One very important thing to mention is that our approach in the 1.e4 e5 mainlines was different than the approach in the rest of the course.

Against other openings, White is objectively able to fight for the advantage. In most cases (most notably the Scandinavian and Alekhine) we have tried to maximize our chances and go for the most principled and aggressive setup. But even in the Pirc and the Philidor, where we have opted for a more practical and fresh approach, we have tried to be as ambitious as possible and objectively fight for the advantage, instead of just “getting a game”. Against all of these openings, Jan has been able to demonstrate a path toward an advantage. Although one could debate

However, in the 1.e4 e5 complex, it is objectively very difficult to fight for the advantage in the mainlines – especially in aggressive ones. Therefore, Jan was trying to come up with variations that are aggressive, lesser-known, and not total nonsense. The verdict is that both The Dubov Italian and the main variation of the Three Knights with 8.Qf3!? are comparatively fresh, challenging, venomous – and objectively not that bad for White.

Of course, we are not claiming that White has an objective advantage in these lines. But the same can be said about any variation in the 1.e4 e5 complex. The good thing is – even in the worst-case scenario where Black finds all the best possible moves, we are not seriously risking to be worse. Our hope when playing these lines is that most of our opponents will not be that well-prepared and able to find the best moves.

True, such an aggressive way of playing does entail a certain degree of risk, because even if we reach an “objectively equal” position, it might still be a rather difficult one to handle for both sides. But we figured this degree of risk is acceptable and something we are willing to live with.

How This Course Came To Be?

When this repertoire was first announced, I am sure many of you were wondering: ‘How on Earth did a schmock like you get to collaborate with someone like Jan?’ To be completely honest, I am still in disbelief. But to explain how exactly this collaboration came to be, let me take you on a brief stroll down memory lane.

For a long time, I have had an idea to do a very specific opening repertoire for the White pieces. However, back in 2021 (or was it 2022?), when I was still working for Chessable in the capacity of the Publishing Manager, I received an email from Jan where he pitched that very same idea. Given his stature and the fact that specific repertoire fits rather nicely with the ‘Chicken Chess’ brand, I figured my ideas of executing it myself were not very likely to materialize, so I more or less gave up on that idea.

However, by mid 2023 a lot of water under the bridge has passed. And still, there was no news about Jan’s new repertoire/return to Chessable. I had the suspicion that Jan might find the writing part of course production challenging, so I figured I might ask if he would be interested in ‘joining forces’ and collaborating on this project. In June 2023, I reached out to our mutual ‘acquaintance’ Mr. Dodgy, and pitched the idea. Fortunately, the response was positive and after the ‘summer break’ we agreed to collaborate on a repertoire together.

True, the final topic of the repertoire was not the one we initially envisioned. But we still put our hearts and minds into this project that has been in the works since October 2023.

How Was The Work Between You and Jan Divided?

One common question people have when they see a project that includes the collaboration of two (or more) is: ‘I wonder how the work on this project was exactly divided?’. In the case of this repertoire, the answer to this question is comparatively straightforward.

Jan was responsible for the analytical portion of the work. That includes choosing the variations, doing the analysis, and providing me with files featuring this analysis. My input in this domain was restricted to double-checking the databases and doing my best to ensure, say, that the moves relevant at the lower levels (according to the lichess database), are also covered.

As for my part, I was primarily responsible for writing all the annotations in this course. As well as anything related to the course design, such as organizing the material in chapters or deciding which lines to present as trainables and which to include as clickables. I did all the work on the non-filmed chapters (such as selecting and annotating the Model Games) independently.

Conclusion

I hope this article provides you with a good introduction/overview of this repertoire. If you are interested but are still unsure about whether the course is for you – you can also check the Free Short & Sweet version on the course on Chessable.

Looking forward to seeing you inside the courses :).

 

Norm Factories Or: The Problem(s) With Round-Robin Norm Events

Note 1: This article was written in collaboration with Benjamin Porthault who did all the statistical analysis. When he is not running Python Scripts, Benjamin works as a performance/mental coach specializing in coaching chess players. Benjamin has experience coaching the English national team, among others. I highly recommend checking his website Mindcreaser.com and/or his Substack. He can be also found on Twitter.

Note 2: This article assumes that the reader has a basic familiarity with chess titles and norms. If this whole topic is a big ‘terra incognita’ for you – I suggest reading my previous article focusing exclusively on the norms and title system. Or reading about it elsewhere.

Note 3: The first half of the article will talk about the concept of Round-Robin Chess Norm Events in some detail. If you are familiar with what they are and what purpose they serve, I suggest you skip directly to the „The Problem(s) With Round-Robin Chess Norm Events“ section of the article, where the real „meat“ begins.

Introduction

About FIDE Titles

Obtaining a chess title is one of the greatest accomplishments one can achieve within the chess world. 1 Many chess players obsessively study night and day primarily motivated by the hope of seeing a few letters in front of their name on the starting list of one of their future tournaments.

Obtaining any chess title is also a very difficult and challenging endeavor. 2 Only a very low percentage of all chess players actually manages to achieve one. Many players devote countless years to pursuing a desired title before obtaining it. And many others fall short without ever conquering that final barrier.

On the other hand, there is no denying that not all titles are equally difficult to achieve. There is a sentiment within the chess world in regard to the Candidate Master title, which is regarded by many as „not a real title“. 3 Some even share the same sentiment about the FIDE Master title. Not to mention the abysmal opinion of an average chess player about the female titles. 4

Irrespective of whether you share these sentiments or not – there is no denying that achieving the titles of International Master and Grandmaster (and consequently -Women International Master and Women Grandmaster) is the most difficult of it all. Not only do these titles require a higher rating than others to achieve them. But they also have a very demanding and challenging prerequisite for achieving them.

Title norms.

About FIDE Title Norm Prerequisites

In order to obtain the IM, GM, WIM or WGM title, a player – apart from reaching the minimum required rating – also needs to obtain three norms. 5 A norm refers to a successful performance in a chess tournament that meets the requirements for the norm’s fulfillment.

In order for a performance to be eligible for a norm, three criteria have to be met/evaluated: 6

Rating performance – A player has to achieve a predetermined rating performance during a single event in order to gain a norm for a specific title. This rating performance is higher than the minimum required rating for the given norm. For instance, the rating performance prerequisite for the GM norm is 2600, even though the minimum required rating to obtain the GM title is 2500.

Federation of opponents – A certain number of opponents has to belong to different national chess associations than the player going after the norm. 7

Titles of opponents – A certain number of opponents has to have a specific FIDE title of their own.

The norm system is what makes achieving the titles of IM, GM, WIM or WGM so difficult. For many players, they represent a major obstacle. It is not uncommon for a player to be rated well above 2400 or 2500 FIDE 8  and lack one or more norms required for the desired title. 9

Aside from the objective difficulty of having to perform at a very high level, part of the reason that achieving a norm is, to a certain degree, luck-dependent. All three criteria envision that you get just the right opposition throughout a specific chess event.

Players with sufficiently high ratings to ensure you can get the right performance.

Players from different federations.

Enough players with the FIDE title.

Thus, even if you play out of your mind, you can still miss out on a norm purely due to the things that are outside of your control. There are countless stories of players getting unlucky with the pairing in the last round of a big tournament and missing out on a specific norm. Not to mention all the stories where people do get the right pairing but then their opponent indulges in a disgusting practice of not appearing in the game – which also ruins the norm chances. 10

Thus, achieving a norm in regular chess Swiss Open tournaments is extremely challenging and luck-dependent. However, most chess tournaments are held using precisely this system. True, there are specific events such as the Chess Olympiad, stronger opens such as FIDE Grand Swiss, or national leagues where the likelihood of scoring a norm is increased. But these events are few and far between. And are not equally accessible to all potential norm seekers.

Thus, it is clear there is a place in the chess world for regular events with increased chances of scoring a norm for a specific title. Which brings me to the central topic of this article.

Round-Robin Chess Norm Events.

Round-Robin Chess Norm Events

About Round-Robin Chess Norm Events. The Motivation For This Article.

Norm events are chess tournaments whose sole purpose is to provide the players with an opportunity/increased chance to score a norm for a specific title. This is done by ensuring that the opposition a title seeker faces in a tournament meets the criteria for a specific title. These tournaments ensure that:

  • the average rating of the tournament is above a certain threshold, which ensures that the participants can easily achieve the required rating performance. 11
  • the number of players from different federations will be sufficient for the norm
  • the number of titled players will be sufficient for the norm

This is easiest to achieve in a (semi)closed setting with a limited amount of players. This is why the vast majority of norm events are held using the so-called round-robin – or all-play-all system.12

Most commonly, these tournaments have 9 rounds 13 and consist of a mixed field of 10 players. The organizers of these tournaments typically invite a number of „title holders“ – titled players (most commonly 3) from different federations. The rest of the field consists of players seeking to score a norm. The rating of these „title seekers“ is usually also restricted to a certain minimum threshold, so that the average rating of the tournament remains sufficiently high.

Under those circumstances, it is fairly easy to ensure that the minimum rating, number of titled players, and players from different federations are sufficient to guarantee a norm for those who perform successfully.

A typical starting list of a Norm event. Source: Zadar GM Norm Tournament, chess results

Now, all this sounds very nice and beneficial in theory. There is no denying that there is a need for such events within the chess world, given how difficult it is to score norms.

However, in practice, many such events seem to be marred with numerous problems. There are many shady practices and suspicious things happening „under the surface“. Many people in the chess world question their legitimacy, refer to these tournaments as „norm“ factories or even go as far as calling some of them „fake tournaments“. 14

A private message I received from a strong (2600+) Grandmaster after openly criticizing these events on my Twitter

Every now and then, a lengthy discussion about round-robin norm events seems to emerge within the chess world. Most commonly after a shattering, record-breaking performance by a very talented young player. The most notable example includes the case of the youngest-ever GM Abhimanyu Mishra. His scoring all three norms in round-robin norm events in Budapest prompted a reaction from the World Championship Challenger Ian Nepomniachtchi. This led to a prolonged discussion and a series of articles on chess.com and even the New York Times, where many problematic aspects of these events were tackled.

I myself have been pretty vocal about issues surrounding these events on Twitter. I first expressed my opinion after American youngster Andy Woodward made some astounding results in round-robin events in Serbia. More recently, I also wrote about this issue after 9-year-old Faustino Oro made a sensational record-breaking norm in a round-robin even in Argentina. Finally, just a couple of days ago, I tweeted in a very sarcastic manner about the success of a Singaporean teenager in a closed round-robin event in Budapest.

This last tweet, in particular, led to a very heated – yet ultimately unproductive debate. In retrospect, this is not surprising given that my reaction was very poor and not very constructive. I don’t think being sarcastic on social media is necessarily a good way of bringing light to an issue. Or starting a constructive conversation about it.

This made me realize I should probably do a better job of explaining my reasoning and arguments. I also figured I should act in a more constructive manner rather than purely mock and criticize.

Thus, in the rest of this article, I will explain why exactly I find some of these events so problematic. And then try to come up with prospective solutions and ways of improving the situation related to these tournaments.

As well as the title and norm system as a whole.

The Problem(s) With Round-Robin Chess Norm Events?

Excessive Amount Of Quick Draws

If you have read any of my Tweets, you probably know that one of my main complaints about Round-Robin Chess Norm Events is that many games end in quick draws. For example, in the most recent one, a big discussion revolved around this particular 10-move draw:

Kaczur Florian – Siddharth, Jagadeesh, 2nd round, Vezerkepzo September GM 2023

On the basis of anecdotal evidence and limited data size, I was under the impression that this number is significantly higher than in regular Swiss/Open tournaments. For this article, I decided to test this hypothesis with the help of Benjamin Porthault. He did a statistical analysis of games from a total of 13 round-robin events and compared their average duration (number of moves) with games from a total of 2 Open/Swiss events. The Round-Robin events featured in the analysis were as follows: 15

while the open events selected were:

When selecting a data set, I tried to choose norm events from different years and countries, such as Hungary, Serbia, Germany, and the USA. As for the Open events, I have decided to select one featuring more higher-rated players (Qatar Masters) and one massive one, featuring more players of all rating ranges (Aeroflot Open). Also, given that an average Open features more games (and more moves), I figured selecting a small sampler size in that case would be justified.

The results of the analysis were quite interesting:

Diagram #1: Comparison of the average game duration between an Open event and a Norm event

In the graph above we can see two histograms. The blue one displays an average Move Count (length of the game) in an Open event, while the orange one displays an average Move Count in a Round-Robin Norm Event.

It is quite obvious that there is something weird going on in the selected Norm Events. While an average game in an Open event lasts around 30-40 „moves“, an average game in a Norm Event lasts either 10-15 moves (the first left peak of the orange graph) or again 30-40 moves, just like games in Open events.

The explanation is simple. The left peak of the orange histogram is there because so many games in Norm events end in quick draws, while the right peak shows those games where the players do actually play normally. The fact that this graph is so fundamentally different from the one for Open events demonstrates that there is something to the original hypothesis. That, on average, there are more short games/quick draws in Norm events compared to the Open events.

With that being said, not all Norm events are equally bad in that regard. Since one of the points I am trying to convey in this article is that there are legitimate Norm events, I asked Benjamin to plot histograms depicting the distribution of Move Count for every individual event. The results for the 13 selected tournaments can be found in the images below:

Diagram #2: Average Duration of the game (Move Count vs. number of games) for 13 Round-Robin events

From the diagrams above, we can conclude the following:

  • two tournaments held in Western Europe (Federicia, Hamburg) had an extremely low amount of quick draws/games below 20 moves
  • most tournaments held in Eastern Europe, such as Vezerkepzo GM, Kecskemet Caissa, and Third Saturday Mix had extremely high amounts of quick draws
  • the only notable exception is the First Saturday GM May 2021 tournament. This possibly demonstrates that the invited field has as much to do with the „fighting spirit“ displayed in the tournament as the tournament name.
  • This is further confirmed by the plots for the tournaments held in Charlotte. It was interesting to observe the difference between Charlotte CCCSA GM Tournament 2016 and CCCSA Summer GM A and B tournaments held in 2021. The former featured much more quick draws than the latter two. Which probably once again had to do with the field that was invited.

Now, there are two counter-arguments I can imagine attentive readers bringing up at this point. The first one is related to the size and the type of the data set used in the analysis. That the amount of tournaments is simply too small and not varied enough for it to count as anything more as „anecdotal evidence“ backed up with some data.

It is definitely a good point. There is no denying that the data set used is very limited. I fully agree this is a somewhat superficial and „quick“ analysis. That a much more comprehensive approach would be very much welcome.

However, I think analysis is sufficient for the purpose of this article. Our main goal was to provide a qualitative/illustrative picture and back it up with a number of concrete examples. I fully agree that a more comprehensive analysis including a much larger sample size is welcome. Or even required! 16Although I suspect the graphs above wouldn’t look too different even if you included a more varied/bigger tournament sample.

The second complaint I can imagine people having refers to the topic of quick draws. I am sure many might say that they don’t see the problem even if the data presented above is 100% correct. That they are completely legitimate and in accordance with the rules of the game.

I do admit that I have a pretty hardcore attitude toward them in general. I consider them one of the most harmful practices within the chess world that I wish were abolished. Part of the problem is that the word „quick draw“ is often equivalent to „pre-arranged draw“. In my world, this is equivalent to match-fixing. I will write about this aspect slightly later in the article.

But before that, let me focus on the main reason why I consider quick draws such a big problem in certain Round-Robin tournaments.

The basic economics of these events.

Economics according to which „title holders“ in these events get paid to play before the event even begins. With the money raised from the participation fees of „title seekers“.

This yields me to the next point.

The „Business“ Side of the Round-Robin Norm Events. The Conflict Of Interest

Previously in the article, I have already described how the playing field of a round-robin norm event usually consists of „title holders“, who are there to ensure that the norms can be achieved. And „title seekers“, who are there to try and get the norms.

What I didn’t mention is that very often, „title holders“ get compensated for their participation in advance, PRIOR TO the tournament. The amount of the compensation and the exact model are almost never publicly available. But from what I have heard, it most commonly boils down to a flat fee and is in no shape or form, tied to the titled player’s performance in the tournament.

Where does this money come from? Very often, the main income source is „title seekers“. Every player who wishes to participate and play for the norm has to pay an entry fee. These fees are quite substantial and much higher than in regular Open events. As an example, take a look at the propositions available at the organizer of the Vezerkepzo tournament in Hungary17

Info from tournament organizer Vezerkepzo

This „distribution of wealth“ leads to a very curious situation where part of the playing field is motivated to try and play their best. While the rest doesn’t have nearly the same incentive. Which is why the vast majority of the quick draws happen precisely in games featuring „title holders“.

This is not just a superficial impression. In his statistical analysis, Benjamin also analyzed the average duration of a chess game for every individual participant in the above 13 tournaments. The results can be found in the table below:

Participants in the above-mentioned 13 round-robin norm events ordered based on the amount of short draws featured in their games. Note that for the purposes of the analysis, every game that lasted less than 20 games was characterized as a Short Draw. Also note that different events had different number of rounds (9, 10, 11 or 13). Finally – note that this list contains only the „worst“ offenders in terms of short draws – not all the participants in every single tournament from the list above.

It can be seen from the table above that certain players, such as GM Czebe Attila, GM Alexander Kovchan, GM Siniša Dražić, GM Tanguy Ringoir or GM Andrei Kovalev, drew a large percentage of games they played in events considered. 18

Of course, doing this against lower-level, untitled opposition, most of the time comes at the cost of the rating. It is not uncommon to see some of the „titled holders“ drop their ratings significantly by participating in these events.

For example, the aforementioned GM Alexander Kovchan dropped almost 80 rating points in 2022 by participating in 8 (!!) consecutive (!!) GM round-robin events:

Source: Alexander Kovchan’s FIDE profile

Something similar can be observed in the case of GM Andrei Kovalev. Since November 2021, when he was rated 2501, he lost 66 rating points – almost exclusively by playing in round-robin norm events.

Kovalev’s calculations for December 2021, when it all started

Of course, not everyone is willing to simply shed their rating like this, irrespective of financial incentives. This is why more often than not, invited title holders are players who are past their prime. There is an ongoing notion that participants in many norm events are „washed-out GMs“. It is not a coincidence that Nepo used the „2400 GM luminaries“ phrasing in his controversial tweet.

Some people will make an argument that this is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs. That it is perfectly reasonable for such GMs to have a relatively stable income source: For example, during our prolonged discussion, GM Kevin Goh from Singapore stated that:

“many GMs especially in Eastern Europe are having a hard time finding a good way to make income. I am referring to the sub 2400 to say 2480 range of GMs who might be struggling to get students and simply have no chances to win prizes at open tournaments. Such events offer them some stable income”

To be honest, I really don’t understand why this view that „old GMs have the right to make a living via these tournaments“ is so deeply established within the chess world. The notion that „I once achieved a title so I have a right to make money by playing“ strikes me as very entitled. Especially in this day and age where the chess world is booming and providing numerous opportunities.

In my mind, getting paid to give quick draws and ensure that other players get their norm and titles is a clean-cut case of unethical money-making in chess. I feel it is a clear case of a massive conflict of interests.

Especially since there are instances where these titled players are at the same time the organizers of these events. For example, it is well-known that certain tournaments in Serbia are organized by GM Siniša Dražić. While the Vezerkepzo series in Hungary is organized by GM Czebe Atilla.

Both of these names were present at the top of the list of players who make the most quick draws. It is also noteworthy that Siniša Dražić currently has a rating below 2300, while Czebe Atilla is also significantly far from the GM mark of 2500 ELO. If there was ever a blatant example of someone being in a massive conflict of interest – here is one.

To be fair, to a large extent, this is true for many organizers of these events. Many of them view the organization of these tournaments purely as a business opportunity. Even a respectable organizer such as Charlotte Chess Club states on their website that they are an „Industry leader in Norm Tournaments“. 19

Of course, the main „product“ of the business is norm scoring. If this didn’t happen, the tournament would quickly become notorious for that, which would be very bad for the business. This creates a unique situation where all three sides: title seekers, title holders, and organizers have something to lose:

  • title seekers might miss the opportunity to score a norm
  • title holders might not get invited to the next event and lose a source of income
  • organizers might get less interest in their Norm event, which means less income from participation fees in the future

This state of affairs was summarized by strong Azeri grandmaster Vasif Durarbayli:

First and foremost, your primary ‘product’ is the ‘title norm.’ Your main objective should be to create an environment conducive to players achieving these norms. Think about it: how long would a tournament last if no one managed to earn a title for several years?

Therefore, you should aim to invite non-ambitious titled players—those who aren’t particularly concerned with their ratings and won’t use all their energy trying to beat a more motivated title-seeking opponent. In such an environment, the odds of earning a norm increase significantly.

Next, avoid offering prize money, as this can overly motivate titled players and undermine your primary objective. Most norm tournaments sidestep this issue by providing fixed compensation to invited players. Last, but not least, aim for the lowest possible rating average to make the title more attainable.

With these factors in place, earning a norm becomes substantially easier than in a more conventionally structured closed tournament where prize money is a factor.

In conclusion, invited players, being aware of these unspoken rules, are more inclined to make short draws. This not only helps other players but also ensures they’ll be invited back for future events. It’s worth noting that only a minority of titled players consider short draws, even pre-arranged draws to be a significant issue.

Match Fixing

As far as I am concerned, even if the concerns raised above were the only issue of round-robin norm events, I would already find them problematic.

However, it gets even worse. Very often, these tournaments are the subject of very suspicious results and outright match-fixing. I have already raised this issue in the section about quick draws. Because in practice, many of them are actually pre-arranged (arranged before the game starts). 20

Alas, it does not end with (quick) draws. Quite often, games with decisive results – or even entire tournaments, are fixed. In certain cases, there were doubts about whether a tournament whose results were submitted to FIDE had ever been played, to begin with.

Historically speaking, this is not exactly a fresh topic. There are quite a few very famous cases of tournaments/players where foul play was severely suspected. One of the most notable examples is the infamous tournament held in Strumica, Macedonia 1995. It was heavily suspected that this quadruple round-robin (!!) was fixed in favor of the current president of the ECU and one of Kasparov’s former seconds, GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili, who scored an outstanding 16/18 (!!!).

Source: ECU President Azmaiparashvili Mentions Cheating, Then Apologizes

Even more infamous – and egregious – examples of match-fixing was the case of the Romanian „Grandmaster“ Alexandru Crisan. He basically faked his way all the way up to 2635 FIDE/33rd place in the world almost exclusively by submitting very „convincing“ results from some fictive tournaments.

Even though none of it technically has to do with round-robin norm events, it is worth noting that the core issue here was the closed nature of the tournaments. Put simply – it is much easier to commit foul play in tournaments with a limited amount of participants (and limited exposure). Especially if the participants in these events know each other very well, as is often the case in Norm events held in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 21

Besides, one doesn’t have to search too long to find suspicious round-robin norm events, too. When I was doing my research article, I stumbled on the following article all the way back from 2005 related to the tournament „Heroes of Chernobyl“ that seemingly never happened. As well as on this article, related to the tournament held in Alushta, also in 2005, whose legitimacy was severely questioned. 22

In recent times, there have also been quite a few of these tournaments that have raised some suspicion. For example, quite a few people have dissected the tournaments and games where the popular streamer Nemo Zhou made her WGM norms. I also remember watching a very disturbing video by CM Sahil Tickoo where he describes how he was threatened by the organizer due to his unwillingness to fix games. 23 The following Reddit thread is also very illuminating in that regard.

Another very notable example that I want to point out is the case of IM Bojan Jovanović. In September 2019, Bojan participated in two back-to-back round-robin norm events in Serbia, titled Narcis 1 and Narcis 5, winning 95 rating points and achieving two back-to-back IM norms.

Source: Bojan Jovanović’s FIDE Profile

There is heavy suspicion that these events were filled with foul play and match-fixing. FIDE’s Ethics and Disciplinary Commission conducted a very thorough investigation at the request of the FIDE’s Fair Play Commission:

The IP concluded that FM Jovanovic violated the Ethics Code (“the Code”), through match-fixing in two tournaments of the “Narcis” tournament series in Divcibare in September and October 2018. They further concluded that Mr. Jovic violated the Code by organizing the “Narcis” tournament series in Divcibare in September and October 2018 for the purpose of enabling selected participants to achieve player norms through match-fixing. The FPL recommended Mr. Jovanovic be banned for 4 years, his rating reset to 2270 and all norms achieved during 2018, 2019, and 2020 be annulled. For Mr. Jovic, FPL recommended a prohibition on organizing FIDE tournaments for 5 years. 24

Alas, despite a clear indication that something was „off“, nothing could have been proven and FPL’s request to annul the results of these tournaments was ultimately rejected: 25

Organizing a Swiss League of 14 players only, immediately next day after a round robin was also done so that norm holders complete the FIDE requirement of playing in a Swiss League, but a 14 players Swiss League is an unheard of event and has brought the game of chess to disrepute.

As noted by the IP in its report: “Immediately afterwards Mr. Jovanovic played a Swiss system tournament (“Narcis 5”-30.09.-08.10. in the afternoon), which he won with 7.0 points and achieved another IM norm. The tournament has a number of special attributes.

There were only 14 participants, 9 of whom had previously taken part in the Narcis 1 tournament. One player dropped out after the 4th round, another player after the 7th round. In the first round, one player was not paired. Another game was unplayed. One player was not paired in rounds 5-7.” This demonstrates how vague and weird this all is looking.

It is worth noting that Narcis 1 and Narcis 5 tournaments were virtually the last two tournaments in Bojan’s chess playing career. 26 After achieving the title and 2400+ rating, he decided to retire from playing and devote himself exclusively to chess coaching. Back when lichess still allowed coach reviews, he was among the best-reviewed coaches on the platform.

This is the main reason why I decided to single him out in the context of this article. 27

To my mind, this is the most abhorrent example of someone achieving the title in a suspicious/illegitimate way – and then using it to market themselves. And enjoying very big benefits from it.

I firmly believe that there is something wrong with the system if someone can reach the „top“ and earn more than a decent living by using corruptive practices. 28

I genuinely think this system should change. That we should come up with constructive solutions to deal with the problem of Round-Robin Norm Events.

This leads me to the final part of the article.

Potential Solutions to The Problem Of Round-Robin Norm Events

If you have endured up to this point in the article, you hopefully agree with my viewpoint that the situation is untenable. That the existence of these events and practices related to them is harmful to chess as a whole.

The question is – what exactly can we do to change it? Are there any potential solutions the the problem of round-robin norm events?

I have pondered on this issue for a while. While I do have several potential ideas in mind. I think any solution should involve either a tougher or more stringent regulation of round-robin norm events. Or a significant reform in the titles and norms system to begin with.

Some of my ideas for dealing with the problems of round-robin norm events are, as follows:

Eliminating FIDE Titles

The main reason why players participate in round-robin norm events is to score norms and win FIDE titles. Thus, if we agree that round-robin norm events are problematic – the simplest solution to the problem would be to simply abolish the title system altogether.

This is actually not my original idea. When doing my research for this article, I stumbled on an interview by none other but GM Nigel Short who first proposed this concept all the way back in 2006:

“My personal opinion is to do away with these titles in chess. I know several instances of tournaments being fixed in order to help players attain the required norms and then get the GM titles. There have been instances of players throwing away matches for money to enable their opponents get these titles,”

Fortunately, I rarely endorse anything Nigel Short says or does. But this idea is worth considering – if nothing else from a contemplative/philosophical viewpoint. One could make an argument that additional hierarchical instruments such as titles are redundant given that we already have a ranking system in place. That ELO is actually a more accurate representative of someone’s skill level. 29 Or claim that – just like in academia – titles serve more as a marketing tool rather than anything else. 30

But that is a debate for another day. 31 In the context of solving the issues related to round-robin norm events – I don’t think such a radical approach would achieve anything. Cases such as Azmaiparashvili’s Strumica 1995 or Alexandru Crisan already demonstrate that rating manipulation are not a complete „terra incognita“ within the chess world as it is already. If ELO rating became the primary „value holder“ within the chess world, I am sure very quickly, Round-Robin Rating Events would appear.

Besides – going to the extreme is rarely the best approach. Even if we agree on a stance that titles and title system are the core issue, perhaps a better – and a more moderate – solution, would be to reconsider the way in which they are awarded.

Which leads me to the following two points.

Setting an Age Limit For Title Eligibility

One thing triggered me a lot in the latest discussion on Twitter related to the case of 16-year-old Siddharth Jagadeesh from Singapore. The fact that many people accused me of „dunking on a kid“. Stating I shouldn’t really use these kids as examples. 32

To be fair, I partly understand where these people are coming from. As my posting history suggests, I often seem to raise this issue specifically when an underage teenager achieves a significant result. I also understand that naming them and shaming them – especially on social media – can be characterized as „going after them“.

But on the other hand, what would be a better time to bring this issue up? It is not like there are many 30-year-old IMs making norms on a regular basis. Not only are more than ever kids actually competing in these events – but they also get much more spotlight. Whenever a groundbreaking result happens, it makes it to the news very fast. Thus bringing the issue to the limelight much more naturally.

It really irks me that talking about this is perceived as „dunking on kids“. 33 Instead of realizing that kids are precisely the best – and most egregious – example of a bad practice/system. It has become way too common for kids and teenagers to chase records, norms, and titles. Or more precisely – for their ambitious parents/coaches to force them to do so. 34

Do we really think it is good to have a system where 12-year-olds like Andy Woodward fly over half of the world to participate in a sketchy chess tournament to extract benefits for the future?

I think not, which is why I feel it would really be a good idea to set an age limit – say 16 or 18 years of age – for all FIDE titles.

I understand everybody wants to have a direction in life and become successful and chase records and get invitations and whatnot.

But I don’t understand why everybody is in a hurry to grow up so quickly these days.

Can’t we just let kids be kids for a while longer?

Changing The Norm System

Throughout this article, I have mentioned several times how the current norm system makes scoring a norm very difficult and luck-dependent. A logical idea would be, to tackle the problem at its core. To change the norm system, to begin with.

I will not pretend to know in which way this system could be changed. Given that the clause demanding a specific number of opponents from a certain federation often causes players to miss out on norms, 35 it could be the obvious starting point. However, abolishing it completely wouldn’t really solve the issue. I think that the number of suspect Round-Robin Norm Events would proliferate. It would be much easier to organize them „locally“ or „nationally“ and make „friendly arrangements “ in such a setting.

The other clause regarding the number of required titled players is also often problematic. Very often, norms are missed because a player doesn’t meet the sufficient number of titled players in a (Swiss) tournament. I have even heard of cases when people faced very strong opposition and simply didn’t bother to purchase a title. 36 What does it matter whether someone has, say, an FM title, if their rating exceeds 2300? They definitely have that strength and it doesn’t really take away from your performance.

On the other hand, the rule does have a point, given that the rating performance is not a 100% accurate metric. Without this clause, someone could theoretically organize a tournament featuring a bunch of 2000 untitled players, score 8/9, and clinch a norm.

To an extent, this is what already happens. Due to the way performance rating is calculated, it is possible to meet the requirement without necessarily beating the strongest opposition out there. Tu quote one fresh example – Abhimanyu Mishra has become a grandmaster without ever beating a player rated above 2500 ELO. Thus, introducing new clauses, such as the one defining the minimum rating of at least one opponent, might also be worth considering. 37

However, the danger is that introducing new clauses might make the quest for the norms/title even more difficult. Besides, it seems to me that, no matter how you define rules, people will find a way around them. I believe that, instead of trying to tackle the title and the norm system, we should tackle round-robin norm events directly instead.

Which leads me to the next point.

Eliminating Round-Robin Norm Events

If we agree on the fact that round-robin norm events are problematic – the easiest solution would be to simply abolish them altogether.

In the past, FIDE actually made a step in that direction. After the aforementioned Nepo-Mishra incident, regulations related to the FIDE titles were changed. An additional clause according to which it was not a must to score at least one norm in an Open tournament was introduced: 38

Source: https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B012023

It would be very simple to go to the extreme and mandate that ALL THREE norms have to come from Open Events. Or formulate the criteria in such a way that Round-Robin Norm Events were specifically exempted without affecting other similar events such as National Leagues. 39

Of course, this approach is probably too radical. It would lead us back to square one where scoring a norm would, to a large extent depend on luck and circumstances.

A potentially better approach would be to consider something more moderate.

This brings me to the final two points.

Regulating and Monitoring Round-Robin Norm Events Much More Closely

As we have seen earlier in the article about match-fixing – in certain cases, FIDE outright refused to register the results of specific round-robin events, signaling, therefore, that they are considered illegitimate.

I don’t know under what circumstances was such a decision taken. But the very fact it was done in the past means it would not be unprecedented. That FIDE could, theoretically, start taking similar actions again. I haven’t followed the situation very closely, but I can’t recall when was the last time a certain event was annulled or someone’s norm achievement was revoked.

I firmly believe that FIDE should start placing much more scrutiny on these events. First of all, I think general regulations for the organization of such events, with specific clauses defining what is considered as foul play, should be introduced. 40

Then, perhaps a dedicated Committee should be formed.  The role of this Committee would be specifically to review the games from such events. To investigate all the circumstances under which the event took place. To potentially punish foul play in a much stricter manner than has been the case so far.41

All this might seem a bit rigorous and idealistic. But given the natural conflict of interest, the economy of these events, and the fact that all involved sides have something to gain, I think a more involved regulatory behavior is required and warranted.

Removing Fees And Introducing Prize Funds In Round-Robin Norm Events

When I first wrote about the topic of round-robin norm events on Twitter, I got into a conversation with a representative from the German Chess Federation. Among other things, he pointed out that the many such events in Germany are structured differently. Namely, instead of having fixed fees for „title holders“, these tournaments simply put all the money from the entry fees into a prize fund. And then have players battle it out – just like in a regular Swiss tournament.

In my mind, this is a very transparent and fair business model. Which is much less prone to „behind-the-scenes manipulations“ and conflicts of interest. Every participant in the tournament is motivated to fight as much as they can in every game. Otherwise, their final income from such a tournament will be significantly lower.

Of course, introducing this format change would make these tournaments much harder to organize. As we have seen previously – many title holders participating in these tournaments view them purely as an income source. I am sure many of them would simply outright refuse to participate unless they receive a guaranteed minimum participation fee.

But would that really be such a terrible thing? Perhaps organizers would be more motivated to find young, bloodthirsty players to battle their hearts out in these tournaments. And even if that turned out to be that difficult – would it really be such a bad thing to have fewer, but legitimate, round-robin norm tournaments?

Instead of so many norm factories?

Conclusion

Phew! With this, we have arrived at the end of this long article! I would like to thank you, dear reader, for enduring until the very end. I hope it has provided you with more knowledge and insights related to these events. And that now you understand my reasoning for being so vocal against them on social media a tiny bit better.

I would be thrilled to think what you, exactly think, about this topic (and the article). I would really appreciate it if you let me know your feedback. Either by leaving the comment below. Or by reaching out to me via email at continents.obp@gmail.com.

Until then – I wish you all the best and see you in the next one!

Women’s World Chess Championship 1930

Cover Photo: Vera Menchik (Left), Paula Wolf-Kalmar, Wally Henschel (top), Katarina Beskow and Agnes Stevenson (bottom), Sources: Various, but mostly the fantastic website BritBase by John Saunders and the following Chessbase article

Women’s World Chess Championship 1930

Introduction

Three years after the inaugural edition of the Women’s World Chess Championship, the 2nd edition of the tournament was organized in 1930 – once again alongside the 3rd Chess Olympiad (or Tournament of Nations, as this event was called back in the day). The Olympiad itself – as well as the accompanying events were organized in Hamburg by the president of the Hamburg Chess Club and the German Chess Federation Walter Robinow in order to celebrate the centenary of the Hamburg Chess Club. 1

Walter Robinow. Source: https://www.schachbund.de/news/id-150-geburtstag-von-walter-robinow.html

Participants and format

In contrast to the previous edition of the tournament which fielded 12 ladies – in the Women’s World Chess Championship 1930 there were only 5 competitors:

  • Vera Menchik – the defending champion and the greatest female player of the first half of the 20th century
  • Paula Wolf-Kalmar – third prize winner from 1927
  • Wally Henschel – a German chess player and a debutant in this competition. Incidentally enough, just like Robinow – she would also later have to emigrate to the USA due to her Jewish origins
  • Katarina Beskow – the 2nd prize winner in the 1927 Women’s World Chess Championship
  • Agnes Stevenson – the only other British competitor, apart from Menchik

Due to the much fewer participants than in the previous edition, 2 the format of the tournament was double round-robin (all-play-all).

Games and results

The defending champion Vera Menchik was considered to be the undisputable pre-tournament favourite. Not only did she win the previous edition in a very dominant fashion – but in the subsequent three years she participated in a number of „Open“ tournaments – such as Paris 1929, Karlsbad 1929, and Hastings 1929/1930 – gaining a lot of experience in competing at the highest level.

Indeed, Menchik managed to justify these expectations and defend her title. However, the tournament path toward the title was anything but rosy.

In the first half, Vera drew with Paula Wolf-Kalmar and lost with White to the debutant Wally Henschel. It is hard to emphasize how big of an upset it was – should it suffice to say that this was Menchik’s only loss in all of her appearances in the Women’s World Chess Championships 3 Needless to say, we should take a look at this game 4:

Note: The games are available for free in the following lichess study and can also be downloaded for free (together with many others) on my “Free PGN Downloads” page

Even after enduring such a shock, Menchik managed to retain her composure and continued winning all her other games. By the 2nd half of the tournament, she was very much in the race for first place and her 2nd game against Paula Kalmar-Wolf turned out to be the one to ultimately decide the champion

style=”text-align: justify;”>It has to be said I was unable to figure out in which round the game was played and how many points the players had. In his book Vera Menchik: A Biography of the First Women’s World Chess Champion, R.B. Tanner stated that:

„Shortly thereafter Paula also lost to Wally Henschel and Menchik won her second title“

But given that Wolf-Kalmar finished a clear point behind, I hope it is not a big historical mishap to say that this game decided the tournament. 5

Thus, with the final score of 6.5/8, Vera Menchik managed to defend her title and reinforce her status as the strongest female player of the time!

References and Further Reading

http://www.olimpbase.org/1930/1930in.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Robinow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Henschel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Chess_Olympiad

1927 Women’s World Chess Championship

Cover Photo: Vera Menchik (Left), Edith Price, Martha Daunke (top), Paula Kalmar, Edith Holloway, Edith Michell (bottom), Sources: Various, but mostly the fantastic website BritBase by John Saunders

In order to track the origin of the Women’s World Chess Championship, we have to go back all the way to the year 1924.

Namely, in June 1924, a chess tournament was held in Paris, alongside the 8th Olympic Games. According to some sources, prior to the tournament, there were attempts to include it in the Olympic Games, which was unsuccessful.

Considering that AND the fact that there was an ongoing discussion within the chess world about the need to establish an international chess organization, it is not a coincidence that it was precisely during this event that, the Federation Internationale des Echecs, or FIDE, was founded by the participants of the tournament.

According to the renowned chess historian Edward Winter: 1

„Paris, 1924 also marked the foundation of the Fédération Internationale des Echecs, with the appointment of the above-mentioned Alexander Rueb of The Hague as its President. Initially, there were 15 signatories to FIDE: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Great Britain, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia.“


At the very beginning, FIDE had very little power within the chess world. In the congresses held in 1925 and 1926, a desire to become involved in the World Chess Championship was expressed. 2 However, given that the World Chess Championship was already very established the World Champions had a lot of power and were in the position to organize matches without FIDE’s involvement.

Thus, in order to increase their power and influence, FIDE turned its attention to organizing other chess events. Given the past attempt to include the Paris Tournament 1924 in the Olympic Games and the fact that this event was considered to be an unofficial Olympiad, it was logical to try to organize the „official“ one.

This happened during the 4th FIDE Congress in 1927, when the First Chess Olympiad was held. 3 Apart from the team tournament for the nations that were members of FIDE, several additional events were held – including the 12-player women’s tournament.

(2nd placed Katarina Beskow plays 10th placed Agnes Stevenson. According to the source (British Chess Game Archive): This is a posed photo as neither was due to play each other on the day that it must have been taken, 18 July 1927, which was the first day of the inaugural Women’s World Chess Championship tournament at Central Hall, Westminster, London. Photo from the Daily Mirror, 19 July 1927.)


This event marks the beginning of the official lineage of the Women’s World Chess Championship. Unfortunately, it was very far from a glamourous one. Aside from the fact that the tournament was held as a SIDE event during the Olympiad rather than a SEPARATE one, there were numerous other issues with it.

Firstly, there was a matter of a very laughable prize fund. According to the book by Robert Tanner titled Vera Menchik:A Biography of the First Women’s Chess Champion, with 350 Games:

„As with all other such events prior to World War II, it was held in conjunction with the chess Olympiad. At that time, no one considered that there was adequate interest in a women’s Olympiad. Entry for the 12-player event was 1 pound, with prizes for first through fourth place of 20, 15, 10 and 5 pounds. By 2013 standards, that works out to a 42 USD entry fee and a first prize of 840 USD.“

Secondly, before the event, it was not yet known that the participants would compete for the Women’s Chess Champion title – this decision was only applied RETROACTIVELY. According to both Tanner’s book and Edward Winter’s article, this decision was announced in the August edition of the British Chess Magazine:

‘It was agreed that Article 3 of the Rules of the FIDE should be altered to include a Women’s championship of the FIDE, and this was made retrospective so as to award the title to the winner of the Women’s Tournament of the London Congress, 1927.’

It is indeed quite absurd that a world championship title was contested in an event where participants did not know that they were contesting the title.

Last but not least, it would appear that the majority of the games from this event were not preserved. In my preparation for this article, I tried searching different Internet sources (e.g. this website seemed promising at first), and chess databases and I even consulted the aforementioned Vera Menchik book with 350(!!) games. Yet, despite my efforts, I was only able to find two games – both featuring the eventual winner Menchik – from the entire event. 4 It is a big shame, given that this event was held in 1927 (!) and that numerous games from matches held much earlier, in the 19th century, have been preserved completely.

As for the event itself, it was won in an incredibly dominant fashion by the strongest female player of the first half of the 20th century – Vera Menchik, who conceded a single draw out of 12 games and finished a clear 1.5 points ahead of the second prize winner, Katarina Beskow.

(Image Source: Edward Winter: Chess And Women)

The result was not that surprising given that Menchik already established herself as the strongest female player in prior years, who would soon afterward start competing in open tournaments against the best male players. But that doesn’t make her dominant performance any less impressive or notable. 5

In order to get a better feeling for the level of her play and the difference in class between her and her opposition, I present you with two annotated games from this event – against 4th prize winner Edith Martha Holloway with the Black pieces:

and against multiple British Women’s Chess Champion Edith Price, who ended up 6th in the 1927 tournament:

In any case, despite all the problems and issues, the 1927 Women’s World Chess Championship tournament was an important landmark event that kicked of a historical tradition that has persisted to this day!

References and Further Reading:

Edward Winter – Chess In 1924

Edward Winter – Chess And Women

Chess Olympiad History

Vera Menchik:A Biography of the First Women’s Chess Champion, with 350 Games

British Chess Game Archive

Wikipedia Entry On Fide

Olimpbase.org: 1st Chess Olympiad 1927

Chessgames: Game Collection – Women’s World Chess Championship

Britbase: 1927 Women’s World Chess Championship

Everything You Need To Know About Chess Coaching: How (And Why) To Find A Chess Coach

Disclaimer: This article was written primarily with chess coaching for adults in mind. While some of the concepts/topics discussed are relevant for chess coaching for kids, not all of them are. Likewise, some matters highly relevant for kids (e.g. pedagogical expertise of a chess coach) are not discussed within it.

Cover Photo Source: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-woman-standing-in-front-of-young-children-8466158/


Table of Contents

Introduction

Ever since the appearance of the Internet, chess coaching has been revolutionized. The ability to hold a chess lesson with anybody in the world turned it into a much more viable and worthy endeavor for prospective chess coaches. In the last decade or two, we have seen a dramatic increase in offer on the chess coaching market. Numerous strong chess players,1 trainers and personalities have decided to try their luck online and offer their services to a wide audience.

From the perspective of a student, this is, of course, a very good thing. The wide availability and accessibility of high-quality chess coaching make it possible to find a good chess coach – often at a very reasonable price. The days when you needed to be lucky to have a good chess coach in your near vicinity are long gone.

On the other hand, the abundance of choice does have its drawbacks. According to the book aptly titled Paradox of Choice, having too many options makes it harder for us to pick one.

This can definitely be observed in the context of chess coaching. Despite the vast offer, a lot of players struggle to find the right chess coach. In my experience, there are two main reasons why:

  • Many people don’t really know much about chess coaching nor what exactly should they be looking for in a chess coach
  • Many people are not even sure whether they should be getting a coach to begin with

Thus, in order to help you find the right chess coach, in this article I will discuss all the aspects related to chess coaching in great depth. My hope is that by the end of it, you will have a better idea of what exactly to look for in a chess coach.

And whether you really need one, to begin with.

I hope you will enjoy it and find it useful.

Why You Should (or Shouldn’t) Find a Chess Coach?

Before we get to the „How“ I would like to talk about the „Why“. I think many players – especially those with less experience – have a misconception about what chess coaching is and misguided expectations related to it. I have the feeling many people hire a chess coach, without necessarily asking themselves whether they really need one. I often have a feeling many do so way too quickly and without very convincing reasoning. 2

This is why I thought it is a good idea to devote a section in the article to this matter. In my opinion, here are some of the reasons why you should (or shouldn’t) find a chess coach.

You aren’t expecting the coach to do the work instead of you

Just a couple of days ago, I started reading a fantastic book by my compatriot, GM Davorin Kuljašević, titled How To Study Chess On Your Own. 3 In the very preface of the book, he discusses the various aspects related to chess study and improvement. I found the following paragraph in the section titled „Be Independent“ very insightful and relevant to the topic at hand:

I think that […] many chess players […] tend to rely too heavily on external directions for their chess studies, such as assignments set by their coaches, online training courses, exercises from books, and similar resources […]“

I think this is especially true when it comes to chess coaching. I feel many people hire a chess coach and expect they will do their work instead of them. Thinking that time spent during the lessons is sufficient in itself to guarantee their improvement – irrespective if they put any work outside of the lessons.

Unfortunately, chess improvement doesn’t work that way. Unless you put in the hours yourself, the effects will be fairly limited. In my opinion, if you are not spending a substantial amount of hours outside of lessons working on chess, there is absolutely no point in you paying for lessons. They should be a complement to your individual work, not a substitute for it.

In a way, this reminds me of my college days when I used to do math tutoring. I have had people pay for it, do zero work outside of it – and then be bewildered how they failed an exam. Even though they didn’t confirm it, I often got the feeling that took the tutoring because it gave them the illusion they are doing something, while requiring less effort than…you know… actually doing something.

This brings me to the next point.

You have really tried working on chess on your own, but are not seeing the results

As mentioned above – there is no other way of getting better at chess than putting in the hours and studying it yourself. 4 Since we live in the era where chess material is abundant, it is nowadays easier than ever to get access to it, find something suitable to your needs and interests and do some independent and high-quality work on your chess.

I think way too many people are too quick to hire a chess coach, without even trying to figure out how far they can go on their own. I wouldn’t go as far as say something like „anyone can become 2000 without a coach“ as some people do, but I do have a feeling some of the concepts – especially at lower levels – can be understood even without having someone spoonfeed them to you.

Do you really need to pay for a lesson to have someone talk to you about what is an opposition, show you an Anastasia mate, or demonstrate an absolute pin? Instead of picking it up from a book, video, or course? 5

Maybe I am just being insensitive given that I reached 2000 primarily by reading a lot of books and playing a lot, but I do feel many adults vastly underestimate their own potential. I genuinely think one should consider chess coaching only after they have tried exhausting their own capabilities. When one has reached a plateau or got the feeling that they are stuck. That they are working hard but not really seeing the results.

Or at least be aware that doing it otherwise is essentially an attempt to „shortcut“ it.

This brings me to the next point.

You are ready to „outsource“ the „thinking“ about your chess study plan to someone

As I mentioned above – high-quality chess material is nowadays abundant and widely available.

And even though this enables you to work very easily on your own, it is also a double-edged sword. Navigating the forest that is the chess material market nowadays can be extremely daunting and confusing – especially for newer players. Many people hire a chess coach specifically to help them find the right material and organize their study time in the best possible manner. 6

Outsourcing something you could potentially do on your own to someone with more experience and knowledge has a lot of sense – especially when your time is somewhat limited. After all – if your car is broken you are usually better off taking it to a mechanic even if you could potentially fix it on your own 7

And while structuring your training or finding the right chess resources does not have the same level of complexity as repairing a car, I do think wanting to have someone to do it for you is a perfectly valid reason to hire a chess coach. 8

As long as you are aware that you are basically „shortcutting “ a task you can probably do it yourself.

You are looking for someone to hold you accountable

Everyone who has ever tried developing a healthy habit/routine knows how hard it is to stick. To be consistent.

Chess training is not an exception. It is very easy to come up with majestic training plans consisting of a multi-faceted study of all the relevant aspects of the game that will skyrocket your rating and confidence. It is much harder to actually implement them in practice.

That is why hiring someone to help you with it and to hold you accountable makes a lot of sense. Many of my students mentioned it as one of the top reasons – if not THE top reason – they got a chess coach. I myself am a member of The Killer Chess Training precisely because I feel bad if I don’t solve and send their weekly set of exercises. For me, the fact that it holds me accountable and actually leads to me working on chess regularly is well worth the price. 9

You are looking for someone to keep you motivated

Tightly related to the previous point. Anyone who has ever played chess 10 knows there are periods where motivation is very low (e.g. the aftermath of a really bad tournament). Having someone who will keep the level of motivation high or reignite the motivation once it drops is another very valid reason for you to consider hiring a chess coach.

You are not doing it because „that is what people do“

Last but not least – in the era of social media it is way too easy to get sucked into doing things just because everybody else is doing it. Given how prevalent and popular it is to talk about chess coaching and hiring a chess coach 11, many people within the chess community start experiencing FOMO and feel „pressured“ to do it because „that is what people do“.

Needless to say, out of all the bad reasons for getting a chess coach – this one is probably the worst. Just like with many things in life – you should do what you feel/think you should be doing, not what others think you should be doing.

How To Find A Chess Coach

What Makes A Good Chess Coach?

Deciding whether you need a chess coach or not is only the first step. Because if you decide that coaching is for you, the more difficult task still remains – finding a good chess coach.

What exactly does make a good chess coach? A lot has been written (and filmed) on this topic. If you google „What Makes A Good Chess Coach“, you are very likely to come across some sort of a list with a different list of qualities. For example, asking ChatGPT about this generates the following list:

a) Experience and Credentials

b) Teaching Style

c) Compatibility and Communication

d) Availability and Commitment

However, these vague and broad phrases are not very helpful when it comes to finding a chess coach in practice. Not only are they very broad and generic and not at all specific enough. But every chess coach will claim they have experience, credentials, compatibility, communication, availability, and commitment. This means that these terms are utterly useless when it comes to distinguishing a good coach from the bad one.

Thus, in this article, I would like to talk about some more specific considerations and aspects related to chess coaching which are – in my humble opinion experience – far more relevant. I think there are certain things a good chess coach should absolutely do – both before and during the lessons.

In no particular order:

A good chess coach should be motivated, enthusiastic, and passionate about their job

First and foremost! Even though many people focus on things such as rating, title, credentials, or fame, 12 I think it is far more important how enthusiastic and passionate a chess coach is about teaching and chess, in general.

Unfortunately, this is not always a given. There are many coaches out there who do coaching for other – most commonly monetary reasons. I have definitely had lessons with coaches where the general vibe was that they would rather do anything else but be there. Not to mention even more egregious examples such as a certain Croatian GM who stated that he is „not an idiot to create a competition for himself“ by coaching talented Croatian youngsters, even though he is getting paid to do exactly that by the municipality/state.

In any case, the enthusiasm can be faked for a while, but in the long run, you should be able to distinguish a motivated and enthusiastic coach from a non-motivated one. And I would definitely urge you to pick those from the first category and to prioritize this highly in your search.

Because an enthusiastic and motivated coach will also make you enthusiastic and motivated.

This leads me to the next point.

A good chess coach should make you enthusiastic about the game

Closely related to the previous point. One of the main reasons why I like to have lessons 13 is to keep the „spark“ for the game going – even in times when my natural motivation is not at the all-time high.

A good chess coach should be able to get that „spark“ going and keep you enthusiastic about chess. This is even more important if we are talking about coaching for kids/youngsters. But even the most self-motivated adult improvers do experience some ups and downs in that regard.

It may seem strange to put this aspect of coaching so highly on the list of parameters, but I do believe it is of paramount importance.

Because remember – if you are not enjoying it and having fun, you are doing it wrong.

A good chess coach should come prepared to every lesson

Even though I was complaining about generic and cliche things earlier in the article, it is impossible to completely ignore them.

It seems obvious that a good coach should be well-prepared for every individual lesson, but in my experience, that is not always the case. Once I had a first lesson with a perspective coach where we were supposed to go over some of my games. Yet, even though I sent them way before the lesson, it was quite clear he was seeing them during the lesson for the very first time. Another coach kept forgetting which material we covered in previous lessons and decided on what we are about to do on the spot, only after the lesson has begun.

Of course, the exact meaning of „coming prepared“ can be discussed. I don’t expect a coach to spend hours looking at the material or writing the new Dvoretsky’s Manual before every lesson. More experienced coaches do update their databases/lessons all the time and have an abundance of material to pick from without too much preparation, anyway.

But at minimum, I do expect the coach to recheck the material at least briefly and arrive at the lesson with a clear idea of what the topic of the lesson will be about.

Because how else will they ensure that you get just the right material for your needs?

This leads me to the next point.

A good chess coach should adjust the type and difficulty of the material for your individual needs

Tightly connected to the previous point. Many coaches (myself included) do have a database of problems/lessons covering different topics they constantly use in their lessons.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with using the same material with several students. But quite many coaches out there use the very same material in the very same order with very different students, completely disregarding their perspectives needs, or weaknesses.

I do think it is a duty of a good coach to detect the most urgent problems in your play. And then provide you with material specifically aimed at dealing with these problems and dealing with your weaknesses.

Of course, it is not as exact or straightforward as it sounds. Sometimes it has to span over the course of several lessons covering different topics. Also, there is nothing harmful per se about covering new topics and expanding your knowledge.

But if you are clearly struggling in basic endgames yet you keep covering some middlegame topics in lessons or if the coach keeps providing you with material whose complexity is way below or above your level, there is clearly something wrong.

Once again – a good coach should do some thinking about lessons and the topics that are to be covered way before the lesson has even begun.

And also after it has ended.

This leads me to the next point.

A good chess coach should give you regular exercises/homework

As mentioned above, one of the main values of having a coach is having someone who can provide you with good chess material suited to your level and needs. This doesn’t only refer to the material you are supposed to cover together with the coach during the lessons. But also to the material you use outside of your study sessions.

Therefore, I do firmly believe a good chess coach should provide you with regular exercises. Or at least homework after every lesson, that is ideally tightly connected to the topic covered in that very lesson.

This should not only help you to digest and internalize the topic covered during the lesson and understand it more deeply. But it also allows your coach to keep you accountable.

This is – as mentioned above – one of the main reasons why many people hire a chess coach to begin with. 14

A good chess coach should have their „hand“ visible in the material they use

When it comes to the material the coach is providing you with – many coaches heavily rely on existing resources and books. I myself consult the relevant literature and search for examples before every individual lesson.

On the one hand, this is very natural. Given the number of good chess books and the richness of chess literature, there is often no need to „reinvent the wheel“. Especially since many students don’t necessarily struggle with access to material, but rather with finding the right material for them.

On the other hand, if you look around for advice on becoming a good coach, quite a few resources and experienced coaches mention that a good chess coach should create and maintain their own database of fresh and original chess problems, exercises, and lessons. For example, in his aforementioned book How To Study Chess Your Own, GM Davorin Kuljašević writes:

I believe that a coach’s duty is to find and prepare fresh exercises (preferably not just rehashing old material from chess books), sorted by themes and difficulty, for students to solve and analyze at home.

A very similar sentiment is shared by the top Indian coach GM Ramesh 15  and other renowned coaches such as GM Jacob Aagaard. 16

This poses some legitimate questions. Is it okay for a chess coach to rely on existing resources? Should they come up with their material? What exactly is the acceptable ratio between the two?

I personally think the answer to this question depends first and foremost on the profile of the individual student. Coaches such as Ramesh or Aagaard primarily work with students of a higher level, for whom there is much more value in fresh and original content. Not only have they already seen a lot of chess material in their lives, but their general chess skill is better developed. In order to improve it further, fine-tuned and specific exercises are required. Average club players and lower-rated players usually have bigger gaps in their knowledge which can be more easily supplemented by material from existing resources.

Secondly, the topic of the lesson also plays an important role. Trying to be inventive when it comes to the field of Theoretical Rook Endgames or Greek Gift Sacrifice does indeed feel a bit redundant. Given that such topics are extensively covered in the chess literature, it is very easy to create a big library of very instructive and fresh examples.

Long story short, I don’t necessarily have a problem with coaches taking examples from books. But I do have a problem when this is done in the laziest and most explicit manner. There is a difference between combining multiple resources, re-organizing existing material, checking it additionally with the engine, and adding your own annotations. And simply lifting entire chapters, copy-pasting them in Chessbase, 17 and then using them in your work. 18

Long story short, I do firmly believe that „borrowing“ should be the beginning, not the end of the coach’s task. And that you should be able to see the coach’s „hand“ in the material they provide you with.

A good chess coach should force you to think during the lessons

One of the main benefits of having a coach is having someone who can observe and correct your thinking process. In order for them to be able to do so, you should be able to display it during the lessons. 19

Of course, there is a time and place for the coach to showcase examples and explain concepts. But I do think a good chess lesson shouldn’t consist solely of them talking. I do think a chunk of time should be devoted to you solving/discussing chess positions.

This not only keeps you active and engaged during the lesson. But it also provides you with the opportunity to apply the concepts explained by the coach in real-time. It is not uncommon to think something is clear to you until you are „thrown into it“ and forced to deal with a concrete position on your own.

As they say – learning is doing.

A good chess coach should be someone you like as a person

Last but not least, one of the most commonly overlooked aspects of chess coaching is the social aspect.

Many people pick their coach on the basis of their rating, strength, or some other „technical“ credential, while not necessarily putting much emphasis on their personality. Many people and coaches think it is actually preferable to keep matters strictly „business“ and maintain the distance between the coach and the student.

I do think it is a bit misguided and old-fashioned. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is of paramount importance to have fun and enjoy your chess lessons. And it is hard to imagine how you can enjoy the lessons and have fun if you don’t particularly like the person on the other side of the screen.

Viewing coaching as a personal relationship instead of a strictly business one is, thus, much more preferable. At a minimum, it will make the entire process much more enjoyable and effective. At maximum, you have the potential to extend that relationship out of chess and develop a potential friendship.

In the words of Davorin Kuljašević:

Besides the mentioned benefits of coaching, there are many more. The coach can become your mentor and a friend, not only in chess, but also in life.

These are valuable things.

What makes a bad chess coach?

Apart from trying to define a good chess coach, trying to define a bad one can be equally useful. In my opinion, there are quite a few „red flags“ when it comes to chess coaching that should signal to you that the coach might not be the best choice out there. In this part of the article, I will mention what I consider to be the most obvious ones.

A bad chess coach does it only for the money

One of the things that immediately put me off from considering a potential coach is clear signs that they are doing it primarily for the money. Unfortunately, it often seems to me quite a few coaches are motivated primarily – if not exclusively – by the potential income they can generate.

Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the desire to earn money and get compensated fairly for your work. But as I argued in my previous article, I don’t think it should be the primary motivator for the work you are doing.

Especially in the case of chess coaching, which in a way, has a social/human element, as it involves helping another human being achieve their maximum potential. I do genuinely think that coaches primarily motivated by money are less likely to have the traits of a good coach mentioned above.

They are more likely to be less engaged and enthusiastic about their work. They are more likely to put much less effort into the preparation for lessons. They are less likely to do any work outside of the lessons. They are much more likely to try to „half-ass it“ and extract maximum gains with the minimum amount of effort. Or put simply – you are much more likely to get an inferior service.

How to tell whether a coach is motivated primarily by money or not? Of course, you can never be  100% sure, but some signs can be very telling. Actions such as:

  • Asking you to take as many lessons as possible and not letting you dictate the tempo

There is nothing more off-putting than a coach who tries to talk you into taking as many lessons as possible. I have had a coach who told me I should take at least two lessons a week so he can “pass me all his knowledge”. This was, not very surprisingly, the same guy who came completely unprepared for our very first lesson.

The student should be the one dictating the tempo of the lessons, not the coach. If they try to do so, there are big chances they are trying to extract as much cash in a short period of time as possible.

  • Having too many students

A very common thing for chess coaches to do these days is to openly brag/advertise about the number of students they simultaneously have. I have read profiles of chess coaches who mentioned they have anywhere from 50-100 students from the entire world.

I also recently had a conversation with an established chess coach on Twitter who mentioned he has 30-40 hours of lessons per week and that he sometimes schedules 9 consecutive hours of lessons per day.

I think this is a bit problematic. As I mentioned in my reply to this coach, I think it is impossible to hold 9 hours of consecutive lessons and maintain the same level of energy, concentration and intensity.

Not only that – I also firmly believe having so many students/lessons leads to the overall quality of coaching service suffering. I don’t think it is viable to prepare for every lesson, tailor the material individually, keep track of the student’s progress and devote sufficient time to the students between lessons.

This was indirectly confirmed by that very coach since he admitted that he „cannot prepare specifically for each lesson“ and that he also doesn’t really analyze the students’ games in-between lessons.

In my mind, this is a clear sign someone is coaching primarily for the money.

That is not to say that you don’t get anything out of the lessons with someone like that.

But given the choice, I would personally always find a coach who has more time to devote to every individual student.

Note: It has to be said that I don’t know this coach’s target audience. But even under the assumption that they are working primarily with lower-rated players who benefit a lot from general instructional material and who don’t require deep analysis of these games, this amount of students seems quite excessive.

Note 2: I do think that 40 hours of full-time coaching shouldn’t include 40 hours of coaching, but X amount of coaching hours + Y amount of time preparing for lessons/doing other stuff. If that doesn’t generate satisfactory income, there are always options such as increasing the hourly rate, doing group lessons, or exploring other opportunities. Besides – I don’t think one should go into chess coaching with the expectation to earn 6-figures, to begin with.

  • Keeping tab of the clock and never wish to prolong the lesson even by 2 minutes unless you pay for a new lesson

Another very clear sign that a coach is in it primarily for the money is „keeping you on the clock“. Ending the lesson exactly at the full hour and not wishing to prolong the lesson the slightest. I once had a very uncomfortable game analysis session with a coach where he interrupted me in the middle of my sentence and asked for more money if the lesson were to continue.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think this should be mandatory or expected. I also agree with the argument that the constant habit of doing so might signal that the coach has some organizational issues.

But I do think some minimum flexibility should be expected. I personally like to let the material dictate the time, not vice versa. I would never cut the lesson in the middle of an exercise or the conversation at the end of the lesson under the pretense that I „value my time too much“. 20

  • Charging ridiculous hourly rates

Last but not least – I think there is no better indication of greed than charging ridiculous hourly rates. It is very hard to say what is a ridiculous hourly rate, of course – and I have written another gargantuan article where I discussed this topic, so I will refrain from doing it here. Let me just say that I have seen people charge 250 USD – or even more – for a single lesson. I don’t think I would ever pay such an amount – even if more affordable alternatives didn’t exist.

A bad chess coach is not engaged/enthusiastic during lessons

As mentioned earlier, I consider enthusiasm to be one of the most important traits of a good coach. The absence of any, is, therefore, a major red flag. I would never work with a coach who doesn’t display any affection toward their job – or chess as a whole.

A bad chess coach does not come prepared for the lessons

Another major red flag that needs no further explanation at this point. Even if you are not a very strong chess player, you can tell if a coach comes prepared for a lesson or not. Sure, there can be some variance from one lesson to another, but if the lack of preparation becomes a pattern that keeps repeating, you are probably better off finding someone else.

As they say, fool me once…

A bad chess coach provides you only with pirated material

Previously in this article, I wrote in length about the origin of the material the coach provides you with. Even though my argument was that a coach should have their input visible, I did admit there is nothing principally wrong in taking examples from external resources.

What is principally wrong, though, is relying on external resources that were obtained illegally. These days, 21 it is very easy to get access to resources such as books or courses. Both in .pdf, but also in the .pgn format. Many coaches 22 have their hard disks full of pirated material. What’s even worse – many coaches are more than willing to share these illegally obtained resources directly with the students. 23

Why is this so problematic? First of all, coaches who share pirated material basically take the lazy way out. Downloading and sharing an illegal source directly is much easier compared to taking just a few examples, combining them, annotating them, and preparing original lessons based on that source. To say nothing of coming up with your own original material altogether.

This means that the quality of service you are receiving for your buck is significantly lower. 24 What extra value in hiring a coach is there if all you get is a book or a course you could have easily bought yourself?

Secondly, there is, of course, the ethical issue. Piracy is very prevalent within the chess world. By indulging in such practices, a coach – and indirectly the student – becomes a part of a larger problem.

Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely not a saint myself. I won’t pretend I don’t have a decent amount of GBs of pirated material. Nor that I have never consulted any of it while preparing a chess lesson myself.

But in recent times, I am trying to be more and more conscientious about this topic. 25 I try to avoid using pirated material as much as I can. Even when I do so, I try to obtain the original resource after the lesson. I have completely stopped sharing this material and always urge the student to obtain a certain book or a course that I recommend to them.

I am not claiming this will solve the piracy problem altogether. But perhaps it can be „a small step“ in the right direction.

A bad chess coach relies on fake promises and false advertising

In my previous article, I wrote in some detail about the bad advertising techniques that are starting to plague the chess world. Chess coaching is one of those domains where these bad practices are the most prevalent.

When you look at chess coaching profiles, it is not uncommon to stumble on coaches using phrases such as „get your chess on the next level“, mentioning they have „the one and only chess learning method“ or promising enormous rating gains.

I am personally immediately put off when I read a profile like that one. Not only because I dislike that type of marketing per se. But because I also think I would have a hard time building trust and developing a relationship with a coach I dislike from the very start.

Additional Considerations

I hope the discussion about good and bad coaching practices above already gave you a clear idea of what to look for in a coach. With that being said, there are some additional considerations I was unable to quite fit into the discussion above, that could also be helpful when it comes to finding the chess coach.

These will be discussed here.

The rating of the coach?

So far in this article, I haven’t really discussed the relevance of the coach’s rating (or title)? Yet, these are often the very first factors being considered by perspective students. Quite a few people think there is a high correlation between a coach’s rating and quality of lessons. Many refuse to be coached by a non-titled player and there are even some elitists who think that nobody below a certain rating threshold should try to do coaching to begin with.

So, how relevant is a coach’s rating? I think it should be taken into consideration, but not overemphasized. I have deliberately avoided discussing it until very late of the article because I think other traits/qualities of a good (or a bad) coach are far more important.

To be fair, there is no denying that the rating of a coach does play a role. I do genuinely think that the coach should be higher rated than the potential student. 26 I do think some level of knowledge/expertise/skill is required. How is an 1800-rated player supposed to explain concepts to a 2200 player if they have never obtained them or played at the level where these concepts become relevant? 27

I also think it is very helpful if the coach has „been through the trenches“ and experienced the difficulties and challenges of your rating level. Say, if you are a 2200 player wishing to get to 2300, I do think it is beneficial if the coach has embarked on the same rating climb at the same point in the past, as they can relate to the struggles and problems much more personally. Even if it makes me an elitist, I would personally never take lessons from someone lower rated than me.

On the other hand, I do think that far too many students obsess over the coach’s rating too much. There is a point where the rating difference doesn’t really matter – or can even become counterproductive. If you are a 1300-rated player, you don’t necessarily need a 2500-level rated coach. On the contrary, such a coach might have trouble dropping down to your level and seeing things from your perspective. 28 I genuinely think you can obtain a similar amount of value from lessons held by a coach in the lower (say 1800-2300) rating range. 29

Especially since lessons from higher-rated players are usually 30 more expensive than lessons from lower-rated players.

This leads me to the next point.

Price?

Since I have written an entire article devoted to the topic of money in chess and since I have already touched upon the pricing of chess lessons in this one, I will keep this brief. While I don’t think you should be guided purely by the price when considering hiring a chess coach, it is a very important 31 factor.

Fortunately, nowadays you can find even a fairly high-rated coach for a very reasonable price. Perhaps the best approach is to determine the budget/fee you consider appropriate even before you start your search. And then filter the potential coaches that fall into the given price range on the basis of the factors mentioned previously in this article.

A good coach vs. the right coach?

Last but not least – sometimes even if a coach is good, they might not be the right coach for you.

Different coaches specialize in working with students of different levels (beginners, intermediate, advanced) and specialize in different areas of the game (openings, middlegame, endgame). I would definitely inquire about their area of expertise before taking the very first lesson. Honest and good coaches are very likely to tell you this themselves, anyway.

For example, I have had at least two coaches mention to me fair and square that they primarily work with players in the 1200-2000 rating range and that they can’t devote sufficient attention and time to a „more demanding“ student like me in the 2200 rating range. In my own coaching practice, I have also realized I don’t really like to work with absolute beginners and always refer them to other coaches when they inquire about lessons with me.

Furthermore, even though there are a lot of „objective“ measures when judging the quality of the coach, a healthy dose of subjectivity still remains. Different coaches have different personalities, communication style,s and teaching methods that may appeal to different types of students. For example, I personally like to have lessons infused with humor and jokes, but I understand that many people prefer to keep them more formal and serious.

When I was looking for a psychotherapist, the main advice I got was to „click“ with them already at the first few sessions. I can only recommend the same approach in regard to hiring a chess coach.

Where to find a chess coach?

Okay, so you have decided that you need a coach and have a rough idea of what you are looking for in one. The next thing to know is – where exactly to look for one.

Fortunately, in the 21st century, this is not very difficult. Below, you will find a few places where you can easily start searching for a chess coach:

Major chess websites

Nowadays, lists with potential coaches can be found on almost every major chess website. The two biggest chess entities at the moment, lichess and chess.com both have one – while I was also able to dig the one on the Internet Chess Club. These are definitely a very good starting point as they not only provide you with a big list of potential coaches but also provide you with more information about their rates and methods.

Note: Note that lichess was very useful in that regard because they had the possibility to see the coaches’ reviews. However – as usual with reviews – one has to be really careful about them. I have heard stories of several coaches on lichess fabricating their reviews by creating fake accounts or asking their friends to post reviews in order to increase their legitimacy and visibility. Besides, if you look at them, they are almost always overwhelmingly positive, which is not surprising given that a coach has to approve a review for it to be visible on the coaching page.

Note 2: After I have written the thing above, lichess recently decided to cancel the whole reviewing system. Therefore, the good’ old’ „word of mouth“ is still the best review method out there.

Note 3: The downside of these lists is that they only accept applications by titled players, thus limiting the pool of potential coaches somewhat.

Note 4: In case you are wondering why I am not visible on the lichess list – your coaching profile is not visible when you get muted for bad behavior. Shame on me.

Online chess academies and schools

Coaching lists and individual coaching services are not only offered on major playing websites. Due to the proliferation of the chess coaching in the last few decades, nowadays it is possible to easily find numerous chess schools and academies offering different services related to individual and group coaching.

I have personally never used one to find a chess coach, but I know many people who have. I won’t name any specific one, but entering „Chess Academy“, „Chess School“ or „Chess Academy Online“ into Google should be more than enough to get you started.

Note: I do use Killer Chess Training which is a sort of chess academy. But since they don’t offer individual chess coaching, I have decided to refrain from mentioning them in this context, since we are focusing on individual coaching in this context.

Other online sources

Of course, there are also other places on the Internet where you can find a chess coach. For example, the website Fiverr has an extensive list of coaches offering their services. And one could make an argument that their entire system of reviewing and making transactions is more transparent.

Furthermore, you can also resort to more direct methods. Many chess coaches post (chess) content on social media such as Reddit, Twitter, Quora, Youtube or even their own personal websites/blogs.32 If there is one whose style and content appeals to you, you can always reach out to them and check whether they are available. 33

Your own chess club/federation

Now, even though we live in the digital era, no online tool can replace the good old feeling of interacting with another person in real life and having a live training session. Despite the fact that the majority of chess coaching is nowadays happening on the Internet, quite a few chess clubs and/or federatons still do offer the possibility to have training sessions in person.

It is true that more often than not, these sessions are aimed at children/young players. It is also true that in many countries, chess coaches appointed by the federation don’t necessarily do their job or are used as the political tool. 34

Nevertheless, in case online lessons are not really your thing, it doesn’t hurt to ask around your club, federation or city and investigate the possibility of having some training sessions in real life.

Conclusion: How To Get The Most Out Of Chess Coaching

Finally, we have arrived at the end of this lengthy article and I would like to thank you for sticking until the end. I hope it has provided you with a more clear idea – or at least rough guidelines – on how (and why) to find a chess coach.

Before I say goodbye, I would like to share one final paragraph from the book How To Study Chess On Your Own. This one is related to another very important question: How to get the most out of chess coaching? Even though it barely scratches the surface, I thought it would be a nice starting point and a good way to conclude this article:

I believe that every student should be actively asking their coach to help them with the improvement aspects mentioned above and then some.

Unfortunately, I see many students being passive in this sense, just waiting for the coach to provide some material for the session without coming to him with questions. […]

For me as a coach, there is nothing worse than asking a student if they have any questions and hearing an answer: „Uhmmmm….hmmmmm… No, I think that I am good for now.“ This tells me that the student does not think much about chess outside the lesson, which is not a good sign when it comes to their improvement.

When your coach asks you this question, it is not out of politeness; he actually expects you to raise your concerns about a problematic opening line or ask him to clarify an unusual idea that you saw in a recent top-level game.

References and further reading

https://chessmood.com/blog/find-the-right-chess-coach-guide

https://nextlevelchess.blog/find-your-chess-coach/

How To Study Chess On Your Own

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p3kYawJpO8

Materialism in Chess Or: How To Make Money In Chess In An Ethical Way

Introduction

The Motivation For This Article

Throughout the 20th century, it was very tough to make a living within the chess world.

Unless you were an absolute top player – preferably from a country like Soviet Union where you also received a stipend – it was virtually impossible to make a living within the chess world. 1


In the 21st century, the situation changed radically. Due to the rise and spread of the Internet and websites such as Youtube or Twitch, many fields, and niches experienced a dramatic change. Chess in particular turned out to be very susceptible to reaping all the benefits of the latest technological advances.

Especially since the last few years witnessed an unprecedented increase in interest in chess due to the fact people were locked at home during the covid and due to Netflix’s hit show The Queen’s Gambit. This “Chess Boom” dramatically increased the potential audience/number of customers using chess products and services. This made chess as a business niche more attractive to potential sponsors, increasing the influx of money within the chess world and the number of opportunities within the chess world.

It has become “easier than ever” to not only make ends meet – but to actually try and turn chess into a full-time career.


While I definitely agree the fact that more and more people are able to make a living within the chess world is a positive thing, 2 I do think there are also negative sides to the same coin.

As in any niche that has a lot of opportunities/money within, in recent times, we are witnessing an increased obsession with money/materialistic values within the chess world. Irrespective whether we are talking about streamers and influencers discussing their views and income, coaches bragging about how many students they have, endless discussions about how prize funds in top tournaments are inadequate or companies such as chess.com constantly talking about new records they are breaking, it seems there more and more businesses and individuals heavily focusing on making as much money as possible – and pushing the narrative/messaging it is an endeavor worth pursuing.

Since I fundamentally disagree with such a narrative/viewpoint, since many things associated with it annoy me to death, and since I like to shove my opinions down other people’s throats, I have decided to write this article.

This is not the first time I am writing about this topic. In my past review of the Chess Experience Podcast, I already expressed my dislike for the host’s business product/model and my feeling he is in it primarily for the money. I also talked about my disdain for materialistic values in terms of clicks/popularity in one of my previous newsletters.

However, since I felt I didn’t do a very good job of explaining the fundamental philosophy/viewpoint behind my reasoning in these past two articles, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about my philosophy in a bit more detail.

In order to do so, I do need to bring a very specific book into the conversation.

The High Price Of Materialism.

The Problem Of Overvaluing Materialistic Values: The High Price Of Materialism

Note: If you want to avoid the prolonged elaboration of my personal philosophy, I suggest skipping ahead to the next part of the article

I know many of you might be wondering: „But what exactly is the problem with materialistic values”? In order to answer the question, allow me to talk about one of my favourite books of all time – The High Price of Materialism.

As the title suggests, the book is essentially a treatise against materialism. That is not to say that the book doesn’t recognize that materialistic values are important – just that after a certain threshold there is very little correlation between materialistic values and our happiness:

„Each of these studies reveals that beyond the point of providing for food, shelter, and safety, increases in wealth do little to improve people’s well-being and happiness.”

The book describes in great detail how materialistic values are ingrained very deeply in our modern culture/society. How we are taught from a very early age to put a high emphasis on them – at the expense of other, more fulfilling values. 3 More importantly – it talks in great detail about all the negative consequences that overvaluing these values can have on our overall well-being.

For example, the book states that:

  • People with a strong focus on materialistic values have worse social life as they have poorer quality of relationships

People who focus on materialistic aims often do so at the “expense” of their relationships, however. Many thinkers and social critics have commented on this phenomenon. […] What these and other thinkers note is that materialistic values “crowd out” other meaningful pursuits, as the time we “spend” earning and consuming often means neglect of our spouses, children, friends, and community. […] Other studies find that materialistic individuals experience more alienation in their social relationships than nonmaterialistic people.

  • Or relationships of poorer quality

Barry Schwartz has called these “instrumental friendships,” writing that in capitalist, consumeristic societies “all that is required is that each ‘friend’ can provide something useful to the other. Instrumental friendships come very close to being market-like, contractual relations, with personal contact and the knowledge of mutual interdependence substituting for formal contractual documents.”

  • People with strong materialistic tendencies tend to be less intrinsically motivated

At least three aspects of a materialistic value orientation work against intrinsically motivated experiences, and therefore against satisfying these needs. First, it leads individuals to become more focused on external rewards that might be gained by activities than on interest, challenge, and flow. This undermines intrinsic motivation, and thus autonomy and agency.

  • People with strong materialistic values tend to report lower levels of self-actualization and higher levels of depression and anxiety

Compared with students who were more oriented toward self-acceptance, affiliation, or community feeling, those who considered financial success a relatively central value reported significantly lower levels of self-actualization and vitality, as well as significantly higher levels of depression and anxiety.

  • People with strong materialistic values experience less freedom and lower degrees of self-expression

First, we will see that people with a strong orientation to materialism tend to place less value on freedom and self-expression, and thus decrease their likelihood of having experiences characterized by these qualities.

  • People with strong materialistic values tend to be more narcissistic

Thus it was not surprising to find that students with strong materialistic tendencies scored high on a standard measure of narcissism.

  • People with strong materialistic values tend to have more physical issues.

Adults who focused on money, image, and fame reported less self-actualization and vitality, and more depression than those less concerned with these values. What is more, they also reported significantly more experiences of physical symptoms. That is, people who believed it is important to strive for possessions, popularity, and good looks also reported more headaches, backaches, sore muscles, and sore throats than individuals less focused on such goals.

  • In general, people with strong materialistic values report lower levels of well-being

Indeed, what stands out across the studies is a simple fact: people who strongly value the pursuit of wealth and possessions report lower psychological well-being than those who are less concerned with such aims.

Considering all the negative effects of being overly materialistic, I think it is very sad and unfortunate that we are seeing an increased emphasis on materialistic values within the chess world. I genuinely think it is important to reverse this messaging and shift the trend in a different direction – especially considering how many young minds nowadays are getting hooked on chess and following the most popular chess YouTubers and streamers.

I hope this article might help turn the tide – or at least that it will make some people stop and think about some of its points a little bit.

How To Make Money In Chess In Ethical Way

While I do think that the obsession with materialistic values is problematic in itself, I think it is even more problematic when individuals and businesses start incorporating practices and earning money in ways I personally don’t consider to be fully ethical.

Since this is precisely what has been happening within the chess world, in the rest of the article I will list some of these practices and try to explain why I personally consider them to be very unethical. Since this will involve a fair share of moral-high grounding and since this very article was meant to be very pompous, to begin with, I have decided to use the good old „Thou Shall” phrasing, in the style of the Ten Commandments.

Thus, without further ado, I bring to you Chessentials’ Guide To Ethical Money Making (In Chess).

Thou Shall Not Half-Ass It

Some time ago, I read an interesting mini-interview with Ben Johnson – the host of the Perpetual Chess Podcast – in one of the issues of the New In Chess Magazine. I vividly remember how impressed I was when he answered the generic question “What is your life motto” with a very profound answer – “Don’t Half-Ass It”.

I often find myself wishing more people offering their services and products within the chess world 4 adhered to this motto. Over the years, I have encountered more than a handful of individuals who wanted to extract the maximum gain with the minimum amount of effort. Most notable examples include chess courses or books not doing a very thorough job 5 or chess coaches coming completely unprepared for lessons or providing me with low-quality material – which is often even not their own but simply taken directly from illegal sources.

Now, it is true that this idea of trying to extract maximum benefits with the minimum amount of effort has been present for a while in the (chess) world. 6 And given how difficult it was to make a living within the chess world in the past, it is understandable to a certain extent.

But just because it is understandable, it doesn’t mean it is right. I firmly believe that doing a job for compensation below the standard 7 it is unethical, even if the other side can’t fully tell and you get away with it.

Especially if one also expects a ridiculously high compensation for that job to begin with.

This brings me to the next point.

Thou Shall Not Be Greedy

Even though the drawbacks of Greed are very clearly emphasized in Jonathan Rowson’s masterpiece The Seven Deadly Chess Sins, 8 one of the sad consequences of chess becoming bigger in recent years is an increased number of individuals and entities within the chess world succumbing to it.

Now, before I get to the concrete examples, let me preface it by stating that I am aware that the very definitions of “greed” and what constitutes a “greedy action” are highly subjective and open to debate. What I personally might consider as greedy someone else might consider as perfectly normal and reasonable.

Furthermore, whether something can be considered greedy or not is highly contextual and to an extent – individual. For example, if a company is increasing the prices, is it because they are milking their customers, or struggling to maintain a sustainable business? If a coach is charging a high price for their lessons, is it because they have high costs of living and four children, or are they simply seeking the first opportunity to cruise the Carribean? 9

It is hard to answer these questions without knowing all the relevant details about the individual or the company. I admit I am prone to jumping to conclusions and stating something is greedy without knowing all the relevant context. For example, in the past, I used to think that the price of 100 USD/hour for a chess lesson was way too high – and after some consideration, I do think that this is the best example of me being hasty and narrow-minded. 10

With that being said if we talk about greed in terms of overemphasizing materialistic values at the expense of everything else. 11 I do think there are certain tendencies and actions within the chess world that are objectively greedy.

A few examples that come across my mind are coaches having way too many students and charging ridiculous sums 12, (chess) companies continuously increasing the prices of their products 13 or constant speeches from people like Levy Rozman and Hikaru Nakamura about how chess prize funds are NEVER ENOUGH 14 and how chess players should earn MILLIONS. 15

But perhaps the clearest example of pure greed is the increasing amount of famous chess personalities, players, and influencers accepting all kinds of suspicious sponsorships and advocating scammy products.

This leads me to the next point.

Thou Shall Not Endorse Shady Products/Services

One of the consequences of the Great Chess Boom and the increased visibility/popularity of our game is the increased amount of sponsorship opportunities. In recent years we have seen both individuals (Youtubers and streamers) and events (Champions Chess Tour) signing some lucrative and quite bombastically announced sponsorship deals with companies that haven’t previously been involved with sponsoring chess tournaments.

The problem is that the vast majority of these deals didn’t involve companies with a reputable track record that have existed for many years. Instead, a lot of them came from the world of cryptocurrencies and offered services/products tightly related to them. For example:

  • the company Coinbase which runs the cryptocurrency trading platform was the leading sponsor of a series of events organized by Chess.com.
  • another trading company FTX was one of the leading sponsors of one of the legs of the Champions Chess Tour (FTX Crypto Cup). 16
  • for a while, the logo of another platform/crypto-exchange Crypto.com could have been seen in the background of every video by Gotham Chess.

GothamChess’ partnership with crypto.com was announced quite bombastically, at the time. Source: GothamChess’ Twitter

Now, I am sure many of you might not see anything problematic with these types of sponsorship deals and attribute my disdain to my unreasonable and uninformed hate of the crypto world. And there might be some truth in it, since I do agree with the sentiment that crypto is the world’s greatest scam. 17

But even if I didn’t, I would still be very cautious about entering sponsorship deals with companies that haven’t really existed for too long and that deal with relatively new technology. Because at best – the convincing benefits/use for that technology haven’t yet been demonstrated. And at worst, there is the risk of becoming the subject of one of the biggest scams in recent history, as was the case with the collapse of FTX.

Is it really good for chess to be even remotely involved with such companies? In my book, signing an exclusive agreement with a streaming platform secretly backed by an online crypto casino is just as bad as signing a sponsorship agreement with a breast implant company for the Women’s World Chess Championship match. 18 Don’t we think it is hurtful for its long-term image to be associated with this stuff? Wouldn’t it be so much better if we actually had some more reputable companies instead? 19

Now, I am aware many of you will say that beggars can’t – and shouldn’t be choosers. Since the number of potential sponsorship opportunities within the chess world was historically very limited, I am sure many of you will say that individuals/entities don’t have that many opportunities and have to accept whatever comes their way.

And while I can see the logic, it shouldn’t be surprising I very much disagree with it. First of all, I am not really buying the whole “there is no choice” argument. I have had numerous people ask me “But how else should people make their money within the chess world?” and I always have to resist the urge to reply: “Well, you can always choose to make money OUTSIDE of the chess world, you know?”.

Especially since many people who do accept these kinds of sponsorship deals are very far away from the “beggar” category to begin with. I have already mentioned 20 Levy Rozman or Hikaru Nakamura, but let’s expand on that list by taking a look at the list of official ambassadors of another crypto-related/NFT company – The Immortal Game, the first ever chess playing platform that incorporated the notorious “Play To Earn” concept. 21

The long (but not fully complete) list of ambassadors of The Immortal Game. Source: Immortal Game’s Twitter

Are you really going to tell me that all these players and personalities are struggling to make ends meet and had no choice but to accept this partnership? That someone like Arjun Erigaisi who had signed a lucrative, $1.5 million sponsorship deal earlier that year is in desperate need of some extra cash to promote such a scam? 22 Or do you really believe that all these ambassadors enjoy playing in The Immortal Game playzone and use it every day? That they are even fully familiar with the entire Play-To-Earn concept, to begin with?

I really think there should be some ethical and moral standards when it comes to accepting sponsorships. I fully agree with IM David Pruess of Chess Dojo who recently wrote an open letter to chess influencers and asked them to take more responsibility for the companies and products they are promoting.

In an ideal world, I dream of people only actually promoting products they are using themselves. But at minimum, I would love to see chess personalities exercising due diligence, doing their research, and being much more picky when it comes to sponsorship opportunities.

Because if you don’t, in the best-case scenario you might end up promoting a shady product or an outright scam to your followers.

And in the worst-case scenario – you might get sued for that.

Thou Shall Not Resort To False/Misleading/Dishonest Advertising

Paid sponsorships are not the only way of promoting products and services that I heavily dislike within the chess world. 23 I also heavily dislike the way chess marketing works these days and the way chess products and services are being advertised.

In recent times, we are witnessing an increased use of hyperboles, overly hyped sentences and gloated promises when it comes to chess marketing. Every chess course nowadays is razor-sharp and practical, and leading to advantage in every line, and easy to understand, and practical despite having 23-move-long-computer lines, and novel and fresh, and thoroughly engine checked, and practical, and full of sizzling novelties, 24 and backed up by database statistics, and tailored specifically for your needs, and approved by the engines and grandmasters and influencers, and oh, have I mentioned practical?

Yeah, London is really fun (?) and you don’t need any theory to play it like a pro (??). Note that this is not a shot at the author of this course as I can personally confirm his courses are some of the best courses on Chessable.

Every chess coach nowadays has ten years of experience, good pedagogical skills, hundreds of students from all over the world, untried and untested methods that will help you gain hundreds of rating points in the span of a few weeks, and top-notch opening files that will turn you into Daniil freaking Dubov overnight. 25

Every new chess company has a revolutionary new technology to change the way the game is played and studied, every chess YouTuber is there to provide you with THAT ONE SECRET to win all your chess games, every chess event is the greatest and the most hype event in the history of the game…

Oh, and let’s not forget chess podcasters that help you learn chess with more clarity and fun since they are “guided by their desire to do good”:

A bigger man than me would probably not single out any specific names, but given the manner in which the host of this podcast misrepresented my previous article in his tweet and blocked me without a chance to respond, AND given the fact his messaging is the very embodiment of the problem I am talking about, I will allow myself to be petty. Besides, as I replied to one of my friends who asked me whether I can ever be a bigger man: “Have you ever met me?”

You get the point.

I find the use of this kind of language and this way of advertising very off-putting at best, and false and misleading, at worst. It reminds me of those horrible ads promising to teach you either a musical instrument or a foreign language in just a matter of a few days. 26

If I can paraphrase famous words of Mr. Svidler: “Nooooo, Lawrence, that is not how piano learning works, sadly”

And I know some of you reading this might say: “But Vjeko, why are you getting so worked up? It is just regular advertising. It is how marketing works, has worked, and how it will always work. Besides, it obviously yields results, no?”

Well, first of all, I am not 100% sure whether this is how marketing has always worked. I do get the feeling that this kind of messaging has become more and more dominant mainly in the last decade or so – ever since social media first appeared. Just like in many other spheres – I do have a feeling it is more important to capture someone’s attention with bombastic statements, rather than what these bombastic statements actually contain.

Secondly, I really don’t think this way of marketing and the way modern-day advertising works is very beneficial on a macro scale – even if it does yield results on a micro scale. As I mentioned in the Introduction, the central theme of the book The High Price Materialism is the negative effect of overemphasizing materialistic values on our individual and collective well-being.

In that vein, the book also devoted a lot of attention to marketing/advertising and describes how our materialistic viewpoint is shaped due to the constant exposure to ads from a very early age. The author even proposed a very radical idea of “advertising-free” zones:

“I believe we should work to declare advertising-free zones. At the top of my list would be schools, roadways, and public spaces such as subways and buses. Some states have already moved in this direction, deciding that scenery is more important than billboards telling us how far it is to the next McDonald’s.”

While I also very much liked the part of the book where the author proposed completely changing the landscape of modern marketing:

„An even bolder step would be to consider advertisements as a form of pollution. […] Advertisements appear to be detrimental to people’s well-being. Just as the government taxes companies that spurt noxious chemicals from their smokestacks, perhaps we should assess a tax on advertisers who spew materialistic messages. Some might try that this limits freedom of speech, but […] we must always wonder about the relevance of free speech when companies pay thousands of dollars per second to display their messages.

Imagine if […] advertising and marketing companies found themselves in the same position as cigarette companies: they have to develop ads showing that their product is harmful. Television shows would be interspersed with reminders that buying products will not really satisfy your psychological needs or make others love you in an authentic way. Instead, advertising companies would emphasize that any product’s utility is limited to helping you get back and forth to the office or to removing spots from your clothes, but really nothing more.”

Of course, the good thing about chess products and services is that they can hardly be harmful. But I nevertheless wish the way marketing worked within the chess world 27 was fundamentally different.

I guess I can only dream.

Thou Shall Not Abuse Your Power And Influence For Personal Gains – Especially If You Are A Member Of A Public Organization

As can be deduced from what I wrote above, I do believe that individuals (and entities) that have power and influence are responsible for how they use that very power and influence. I think it is highly unethical to abuse/leverage power or influence for personal gain.

And as problematic as I find it when private individuals and entities do it, 28 I think it is even more problematic when it is done by members of public organizations, that are supposed to be run on a non-profit principle and serve the game of chess instead of its members.

Unfortunately, just like in many other sports/fields, the biggest culprit is the international governing body – FIDE, which has a long-lasting and proven track record of corruption, malpractice, and power/influence abuse. It is so deeply ingrained and such a well-known fact that I don’t even feel the need to pinpoint concrete examples. I believe everyone who has spent some time within the chess world knows what I am talking about. 29

Unfortunately, these tendencies are not restricted only to FIDE but are rather characteristic of almost any public chess organization. Continental organizations such as ECU 30 have also had their own share of issues. And on a more personal level, I can definitely confirm corruptive practices and unethical standards are very much present within national chess federations such as Croatian Chess Federation. 31

Of course, it is probably very naive and idealistic to expect some sort of moral codex from any organization that is actually political in its nature (and chess federations definitely are). But it still makes me extremely frustrated and sad to constantly run into vivid examples of power abuse and corruption – in particular when it is happening in front of my nose and in my home country. 32

Thou Shall Not Hide Everything Behind The Paywall – Especially If It Is Available For Free Elsewhere

A very common business model in the 21st century is the so-called “Freemium” business model, which incorporates providing the users with a small chunk of your products/services/features for free and hiding the rest behind a paywall.

It is certainly a legitimate and relatively transparent concept and I don’t have any particular issues with it. What I have issues is the way it is often implemented in practice. More concretely – I often have issues with what individuals and businesses implementing it do offer for free, and what remains hidden behind the paywall.

I actually think there are companies within the chess world, such as Chessable, that implement the freemium model very well, offering a very fair share of their products for free, and that don’t really restrict the core functionalities of their Move Trainer technology to the premium users of the website.

But more often than not, what is being offered for free is peanuts compared to the entire product – and features hidden behind the paywall are often so essential that they make the free use of the product completely futile.

As an example, let’s take look chesscom’s three levels of membership,

Image source: September 1st plan changes – Chess.com Member Support and FAQs

and then let’s see how the benefits they provide compared to the features available to non-paying members:

Source: What does each level of membership get me? – Chess.com Member Support and FAQs

Quite honestly – I do think that the discrepancy between the paying and non-paying members is too large. Not only do the non-paying members have severe restrictions when it comes to accessing exclusive content on the website, 33 but they also get severe restrictions when it comes to using some of the core functionalities of the website, such as puzzle solving, playing puzzle rush or even analyzing their own games.

I am aware that this business model works and that people are willing to pay for these features. But as I explained earlier – I don’t really believe in the whole “People are willing to pay” argument. I believe that businesses – and not customers – retain the responsibility for the product they are offering. Especially since chesscom’s audience consists of many people relatively new to the game 34 who simply don’t have an overview of what is available on the market or ideas how to accurately value a chess-related product or feature.

I think this is especially problematic since many of those hidden behind the paywall are not particularly revolutionary, difficult to implement – and are available on many other platforms for completely free. Don’t get me wrong, I am not one of those average r/chess users that go around shouting chess.com bad lichess good. 35 I understand there is a difference between a for-profit and a non-profit company.

I also know there aren’t any rules or guidelines when it comes to freemium models. Deciding what is worth hiding behind the paywall is quite subjective and unclear and ultimately left to the business to decide.

I just wish companies such as chess.com would implement the freemium model more like Chessable and less like chess.com. That they would put a paywall only on those features and products that weren’t available elsewhere and that provide their users with unique value. 36

Thou Shall Not Sell Your Chess Games

Anyone who has spent some time in the chess world has heard stories about chess games being rigged.

I am not exclusively talking about the long-lasting habit of prearranging draws. 37 What I am talking about here is the relatively common practice of rigging the result of a chess game by intentionally losing it – usually for a certain compensation/fee.

This practice is much more widespread than people think. Over the years, I have heard multiple stories of games being thrown for different reasons – most commonly in order to ensure one side wins a prize at a tournament or to ensure one side will get their norm. 38 I have personally been asked to throw a game at least two times in the last rounds of open tournaments in the last ten years. And while I do think it is more common in my country (and Eastern Europe) than in some other places, I am sure this happens all over the world.

Needless to say, the practice of selling chess games is deeply unethical. 39

I sincerely believe we as a chess community should fight against it all on fronts.

And report all potential instances of it happening to relevant bodies and organizations.

Conclusion: A Personal Perspective

Thus, we have finally reached the end of this article. Even though it ended up being way longer than I anticipated, 40 I still have a feeling I have barely scratched the surface of this fascinating and complex topic. If you have any thoughts, opinions or disagreements, feel free to express them – either by commenting on this post or contacting me via Twitter or email.

Now, since I am aware that this article might come across as quite douchey and since I am aware many people might say it is very easy to do all the „high ground” talking before we depart, I would like to say a couple of more things.

First of all, allow me to acknowledge that I am very much aware of my very privileged situation. I currently live in a place of my own, provided to me by my parents. I live in a relatively cheap country, I don’t have children and my general expenses are rather low – which makes it much easier for me to start preaching anti-materialism compared to many others.

Secondly, I would like to point out that everything written above is not just some preaching of someone completely unrelated to chess, but of someone who very much has his „Skin in the game”. Slightly more than a year ago, I quit my well-paid job at Chessable to try and pursue a career as a freelancer. This career is, at the moment of writing, not yet fully sustainable. I certainly know from personal experience how it is not easy to make a living within the chess world – even in the 21st century.

However, just because it is not easy, doesn’t mean we should drop all moral considerations and resort to unethical ways of making money (in chess). I do really believe that the chess world is headed in a very negative direction against which it is very much worth fighting for.

Because in contrast to the popular notion – most of us DO have a choice.

What will be yours?

How (and Why) To Analyze Your Chess Games: A Step-By-Step Guide to Analyzing Your Chess Games

Introduction

Analyzing your chess games is often recommended as one of the best ways to improve your chess game. Everyone in the chess world, from the sixth World Chess Champion Mikhail Botvinnik, famous Soviet trainers such as Dvoretsky and Nikitin, to chess coaches and strong players in the 21st century 1 is constantly talking about its importance and making you feel guilty 2 if you are not doing it correctly/at all.

However, even though many people are aware analyzing their games is something they should be doing, it is often not 100% clear to them WHY. I frequently get asked what exactly is the benefit of analyzing your own games. I have even met a few people who outright claimed they don’t see any point in doing so.

Furthermore, even though a lot has been written about the importance of analyzing your games, very little has been written about HOW exactly one should do it. Through my work as a chess coach, I have noticed many improvers struggle with it or do it in a sub-optimal manner 3. Thus, when I first got more serious about coaching, one of the first things I did was create a step-by-step guide describing my own approach/recommended method for analyzing my own games, which I send to each new student after the introductory session.

In this article, I am going to expand and structure the material in this document and show you, dear reader, the process of analyzing a chess game that I have been using, both with my students and throughout my own chess career. I don’t claim that the method outlined is by any means definitive or exhaustive, but I do think it does provide you with a rough idea of how to analyze your own chess games.

I do hope you will enjoy it and find it useful!

Why analyze your chess games?

Now, before we get to „how“, let’s stop for the moment and ask ourselves – „why“. As mentioned above – to many people it is not at all obvious whether analyzing their games is the best improvement method – if useful at all. Whenever I was confronted with such claims in the past, I used to laugh them off in the manner of a true chess elitist.

However, I do think this is a question worth exploring. Recently, I started wondering whether there is limited value in analyzing your own games (on your own) for players of the lower rating range.  I do not dare to say up to which exact rating range, but if your games are constantly decided with very simple tactics, leaving your pieces hanging or not taking your opponent’s hanging pieces, I feel your primary goal should be to get to the level where these „elementary oversights“ don’t happen – and I am not sure whether analyzing your own games is the most helpful in eliminating them. 4

On the other hand, one could also make an argument that even lower-rated players do benefit from analyzing their own games – but that the way they do the analysis should be somewhat adapted to their needs. In a recent Twitter thread that I posted on the topic of the viability of the chess analysis for lower-rated players,

(I still can’t write a Tweet without a typo – especially when doing it on my phone. And I am sure not paying for that blue mark, Elon Musk, you greedy scallywag)

I received a very insightful and interesting reply from IM David Pruess, one of the „senseis“ from Chess Dojo, who mentioned that the way one analyzes the games should change with the level and who briefly discussed how this process should look for lower-rated levels:

(Note that the „program“ I am referring to is Chess Dojo’s extensive chess traning program that does put a heavy emphasis of analyzing your own games, irrespective of one’s level)

Thus, while one could argue the benefits of analyzing one’s games are not obvious for lower-rated players, 5, stretching this argument to players of ALL levels and claiming that there is no value in analyzing your games at all is completely misguided. Analyzing your games is one of the most valuable – if not THE most valuable – improvement method 6. I think there is a good reason why almost all top coaches recommend it and why all top players do it. If you are even semi-serious about your chess improvement, I do believe you should be doing it, too.

I firmly believe there are numerous benefits to analyzing your own games. In broad terms, analyzing your own games allows you to detect the flaws in your thinking process, discover your mistakes, penetrate deeply into the positions that appeared in your game, discover new ideas and ways to handle certain positions, and play all stages of the game better.

More concretely, here are the benefits of analyzing your own games:

A) Detecting the weaknesses in your opening repertoire and deepening and updating your opening knowledge

Hopefully, this is self-understandable. There is no better way of testing your opening knowledge than a real-game scenario. Encountering a variation over the board often makes you ask questions you wouldn’t ask in the safety of your study room. It also leads to you seeing the variation and the resulting position in a different light – especially if you forgot to go beyond the opening and check some typical ideas and plans in the resulting middlegame during your preparation. 7

Therefore, going back to the drawing board and analyzing the opening stage after the game can yield multiple benefits. Not only can you test your memory and see where you deviated from your repertoire, but you can also compare the way you handled the position with the engine recommendations/way other strong players handled it. This process not only expands your knowledge but can also help you determine whether the opening variation is the one you should be playing to begin with. Because it may turn out that the resulting positions were not fully to your taste.

This leads me to the next point.

B) Detecting positions/types of positions which you don’t handle that successfully/where you are less comfortable/don’t know what to do and using them as the learning material/opportunity

Somewhat connected to the previous point – since chess is such a difficult and complex game, every now and then you will stumble on a position where you either didn’t feel comfortable or didn’t really understand very well. These moments/positions are fantastic learning material/opportunities. By carefully analyzing them, you can improve several aspects of your play – strategic understanding, tactical vision, understanding of what types of positions you like and don’t like, etc.

A game I played against young 14-year-old FM Arthur de Winter in December 2022 is a very good example. I managed to surprise him with an opening, get my preparation and obtain a very comfortable and equal position. However, due to my lack of familiarity and experience with this structure, I didn’t quite know where my pieces should go and played some strange maneuvers, violating basic positional principles that could have allowed my opponent to gain a serious advantage.

Careful analysis of this game improved my understanding of this type of structure with the open d-file and also added some very typical positional ideas such as the Qb6-a5-a4 plan I have added to my armory. Now I feel more confident to potentially employ the same opening variation in the future and handle the position more successfully.

C) Detecting errors and problems in your thinking process

Even though this point is kinda connected, errors in the thinking process are usually caused by the lack of understanding of a position. But they are also caused by other, broader factors – and a deep analysis of the games can help uncover what exactly causes them.

For example, the comparison of variations you considered in your calculations with additional possibilities you discover in the analysis (on your own, with the coach with the engine) provides you with a lot of information about your calculation process.

Do you fail to consider your opponent’s resources? Do you not consider enough candidate moves? Do you stop your variations too early? Are your evaluations way of the mark?

These questions provide you with a lot of insight into what is actually going on in your head during a game and can provide you with clear direction on which aspect of the game you should study in the subsequent period.

Of course, let’s not forget that one’s emotions also have a significant impact on one’s decision-making over the course of the game. This brings me to the next point.

D) Detecting the emotions and pure psychological issues that influence the decision-making over the board

Everybody who has ever played a game of chess knows that a player experiences a whole array of emotions over the course of it. Despair, joy, triumph, relief, sadness, happiness can all appear and have a decisive effect on the moves being played. Keeping track of these emotions can be very useful, as more often than not they affect your play in a negative fashion.

Here are just a few examples:

  • playing overconfidently, which causes you to be superficial, not calculate, and lose your objectivity. Very common when facing lower-rated opponents or when being in a winning position.
  • playing without confidence, which makes you too cautious or reluctant to play ambitious moves, even when the position demands them. Typical when faced with a very strong opponent or when we overestimate our opponent (underrated kids!).
  • having emotions affect your ability to evaluate positions (e.g. not deciding on a piece sacrifice because of a fear of losing)
  • having emotions affect your fighting spirit (accepting the defeat too early, not putting up a tenacious defense in a difficult position, etc.)

As a concrete example, let’s once again return to my game against Arthur De Winter. In the diagram posted earlier, the lack of familiarity with the position right out of the opening made me start seeing ghosts and this fear affected my ability to evaluate and play the position properly.

And even though I managed to obtain a reasonable position after my opponent failed to punish my reckless play, the emotional discomfort and psychological difficulties remained with me throughout the rest of the game and caused me to make a series of bad moves at a critical moment much later in the game:

E) Detecting the issues with your time management

Last but not least, many chess players have significant issues with their time management during the game. It is not uncommon to fall between one of the two extremes – while some play too quickly and somewhat superficially, others spend too much time even on routine decisions and often end up in severe time trouble.

In either case, paying attention to the time spent on each move during the analysis of the game can be very useful. Not only does it allow you to be more aware of the moments where you spend too little/too much time – but you can also try to detect the reasons for it.

For example, if you are playing too fast you might have issues with your nerves or you might lack discipline. While if you play too slow, you might have confidence issues, problems with your calculation speed/accuracy, or your problems with maintaining your concentration/focus. Becoming aware of these issues is extremely useful as it is the very first step toward resolving them 8.

How To Analyze Your Chess Games

Hopefully, if you managed to last until this point, 9 you are now convinced that you should analyze your own games. Allow me, therefore, to get from „Why“ to „How“. Below, you will find the method I use myself 10 presented in the form of a step-by-step guide.

Note that I don’t pretend that it is by any means original nor exhaustive/conclusive. It is meant to be more of a guideline/framework rather than a rigid guide. I do believe it incorporates more-or-less everything that is important, but feel free to tweak it to better suit your needs and purposes.

Without further ado, here is how to analyze your chess games.

Step number 1: Enter your game into a software

This is self-understandable, I hope :). This step is not necessary if you are analyzing an online game because then the .pgn of the game is immediately available. But if we are talking about a game played in real life,  it is necessary to enter it manually 11 into the software of your choice. 12

Note 1: This mainly refers to the games played with the classical time control where writing the moves down is obligatory. My assumption is that reconstructing those games is not a problem, although I do recommend trying to remember the moves without referencing the scoresheet. Because of visualization and stuff.

Note 2: I also try to remember my games from blitz/rapid tournaments – not only because it allows me to practice my memory/visualization – but also because these games are very valuable material.

Step number 2: Enter the time usage

As mentioned above, analyzing your own games allows you to detect issues with your time management. It is, therefore, highly recommended to write down the time spent on each move during the game and then also enter it into the software of your choice. 13

Of course, this step can be skipped if we are talking about an online game, as most websites keep track of the time usage and provide it with the .pgn once the game is finished.

Step number 3: Enter the lines you considered during the game with brief thoughts

After the game and time have been entered, it is time to start with the analytical process. The first thing I do is enter whatever went through my mind during the game. Variations I calculated, plans I considered, positions I evaluated, etc. I usually add some brief remarks such as „I didn’t like this“ or „I was afraid of this“ so that some of my emotions/sentiments about the resulting positions are also conveyed.

This later helps me compare my own thoughts with „the absolute truth“ presented in the form of engine analysis or in the form of model games played by other strong players. This helps detect errors in your thought process, checks the accuracy of your calculations, expands your understanding of the position/opening/structure, etc.

Note 1: Please put evaluations at the end of every line. One of the most common mistakes people make is not evaluating positions – irrespective of whether we are talking about the position on the board or a position that could have appeared in your calculations. Getting used to thinking in terms of evaluations is absolutely crucial.

Note 2: It is very helpful to do this step immediately AFTER the game while the variations you considered during the game are still fresh in your mind. 14

Note 3: If I am playing the tournament, I also consult the opening reference and check some model games immediately after the game, in case I decide to repeat the same opening in a subsequent game. It can, naturally, be also done during any of the subsequent steps.

Note 4: Since I try to do a post-mortem with my opponent after a game whenever I can, I also enter their own thoughts and opinions – which is especially valuable when you are playing against somebody much stronger than you. And yes, I know that post-mortems are becoming a forgotten sport, which is a big shame. Do we really need LESS social interaction and connection in the 21st century? 15

Step number 4: Enter any additional lines of interest (without the use of the engine)

After executing steps 1-3, your .pgn should already be quite „thick“ and ready for annotations and engine analysis. However, if you have some additional time, you can consider going over the game anew and analyzing it on your own anew without the engine. I don’t necessarily recommend going full „Robert Hübner“, 16 I definitely see some value in having a „fresh look“ on the position and trying to use your brain again before consulting the silicon friend 17.

Step number 5: Write detailed annotations to the game

Once all variations have been entered, it is now time to write detailed annotations to the game. I find writing textual explanations of my games helpful, both in terms of conveying and clarifying my thoughts, but also when the time comes to show the game to someone else. 18

Together with step 4, this will constitute „the meat“ of the analytical process. As a matter of fact, these two steps are closely connected – as very often you will notice a variation or a continuation as you are writing the text to your moves.

Note: I often get asked by students/people how much they should write, and I always reply „The more the merrier“. As any Chessable author knows 19 there is no such thing as „too few explanations“ – especially if you intend to send the game to a friend or a coach. Thus, the only reasonable constraint is the time constraint J.

Step number 6: Do engine check and refine annotations

Even though the temptation to check the engine immediately after the game is very big in the 21st century, I recommend using it only after all the subsequent steps have been done. 20

Using the engine earlier in the process will diminish the effect of the learning process, as humans usually consider way more variations and consider many more irrelevant lines than the engine – so using the engine immediately might result in omitting them from your analysis completely.

What should the engine analysis consist of? Even though an entire article could be written on this topic, I would roughly divide this process into several subprocesses:

  • clicking through your proposed variations and comparing your evaluations to the evaluations of the engine
  • in cases where your evaluation differs significantly from the evaluation of the engine – try to understand why by checking the engine variations in depth
  • in general, checking different computer moves in different positions that occurred/could have occurred in the game.
  • don’t forget to rely heavily on the method of comparison

It has to be said that there are dangers when it comes to using the engine, so it is important to mention that you should never simply take the engine’s number/line for granted without asking yourself WHY a certain move is good or a certain line works. Using engines in a good manner is a skill on its own so make sure you do that mindfully and ask for feedback/advice if you are not 100% certain on how best to do it.

Note 1: Sometimes it is recommended to do the engine analysis only „after“ you go over the game with the coach. Whereas I generally understand where it is coming from, I am not a big advocate of that as learning how to work on your own on your games can have numerous benefits (although this does depend on your level, to an extent – the higher rated you are, the greater degree of independence and engine proficiency when analyzing your own games is expected).

Note 2: On the other hand, if you are in the middle of a tournament, there is a big temptation to consult the engine before all the analysis and annotations are done. It is probably not very helpful to do so. Not only because analyzing your own games once you have consulted the engines comes from a different place since you already know the „best“ moves. But also because there is the possibility that the missed opportunities will come back to haunt you. Although I can’t say I am immune to the temptation myself.

Step number 7: Analyze the game with a friend/coach

One of the beauties of chess is that it is a social game. Analyzing your own games with a friend/training partner is a really fun, interactive and nice way of study method. Of course, if you are taking lessons, it is also useful to go over (some of) your games on a regular basis with the coach as well, in order to keep track of the progress, work on weaknesses, etc.

Ideally, you shouldn’t know the „absolute truth“ when doing this step, although I still think there is value in analyzing with other people even if you did check the game with the computer. 21

Step number 8: Write down the lessons you have learned from the game and draw the conclusions

Last, but not least, after the analysis is done, it is important to formulate some sort of conclusion and detect some things that went well, but also some things that can be improved. I personally like to write three key lessons I can learn from my games – especially those I have lost.

This should help you understand the origins of your defeat/problems/weak areas better. These areas can vary – they can be chess-related (e.g. I often evaluate positions wrongly, or „I am not familiar enough with plans and ideas in structure with the isolated pawn“, or non-chess related („I am too afraid to handle attacking positions with the initiative “ or „I get intimidated when playing higher-rated players“, or „I play too fast in my games and this is especially problematic in critical moments“).

Of course, detecting these issues AND figuring out how to work on them on your is not always very straightforward 22. This is where having a training partner/friend can be very helpful – especially if they are stronger than you 23. To say nothing of a good chess coach. 24

With that being said, don’t expect a sudden change – chess improvement is a long-lasting process and it may take a while to reap the rewards of your previous labors (including the game analysis) – especially as you climb the rating scale :).

Example of my own analyzed game (with steps 1-8 implemented)

Thus, we have finally arrived at the end of 25 long article J. In order not to leave you only with the theoretical framework, I would like to provide you with a concrete example of my game analyzed in accordance with the step-by-step guide proposed above. 26

The game was played roughly a month ago 27 in the 2nd Croatian League. It was not the most eventful or rich game of my entire career, but I have decided to choose it nevertheless because it was the only recent game of mine where I felt comfortable talking in detail about the opening stage and „leaking “ my opening preparation. 28 Namely, the game featured the very same line that is already publicly available 29 in my 2nd Chessable course titled Stomp The Sicilian. 30

Nevertheless, despite its „length“, I spent around 2 hours analyzing and annotating it. The fruits of my labor can be found below in the form of a lichess study:

 

 

How To Use Chess Engines: The Method of Comparison

Introduction

Even though chess engines are a very powerful 1 tool for analyzing chess positions, many people 2 are struggling with their use. In this article, aptly titled How To Use Chess Engines, I am going to write about the method I use when analyzing chess positions with the engine – the so-called Method of Comparison.

What is the Method of Comparison?

So what exactly is the method of comparison? As its name suggests – it is a method of analyzing position where you compare two chess variations that start with a different initial move, but then feature a sequence of identical moves.  Essentially, the point is to compare two virtually identical positions that have one “small” difference (such as a pawn or a piece on a different square) and to understand why a certain continuation is very strong in one case and not so strong in another case. Basically, it provides an answer to the question: “Wait, why does THIS move work HERE and not THERE?”

The method of comparison allows you to dig deeply into the position and understand it better, while also appreciating/discovering key ideas whose significance might become obvious only much later in a certain variation. And even though it can be used even when you are analyzing on your own, I think it is very suitable when you are working with a chess engine. Our silicon friend often shows us “disgusting engine lines” we don’t fully understand. The method of comparison can help us ask all the right questions and understand these lines – and the entire position – much better.

The Method of Comparison in Action

In the very likely case that you didn’t get any of what I wrote above, allow me to demonstrate the use of the Method of Comparison on a concrete example – the game seven of the 2023 World Chess Championship between Ding Liren and Ian Nepomniachtchi 3 This game was my inspiration for this article because it featured an incredibly deep move 41, whose point I didn’t grasp at all at first glance – but only after I used the method of comparison to unravel its hidden points.

(Study is also available for free here )

My Youtube Video On The Topic

ChessDojo Youtube Video On The Topic

Definitely more broader, but probably also much more comprehensive and understandable video on the topic of using chess engines by ChessDojo:

Burn Variation of the French Defence

This article is part of a series of articles covering different Opening Variations. You can find the complete list of Openings/Variations covered on the following link.


Introduction

After covering the Alekhine-Chatard variation of the French Defence, today, we are going to continue our explorations of the 4.Bg5 Classical French and analyze arguably the best reply available to Black, the move 4…dxe4 leading to the so-called Burn Variation of the French Defence.

Burn Variation Of The French Defence

Overview and main ideas

The main variation analyzed in this post will be the variation of the French Defence that arises after the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4

Even though as beginners we are taught not to release the tension in the center prematurely as it activates the opponent’s pieces and gives them more space, Black’s argument is that drawing the knight to e4 will create some opportunities to challenge it and potentially exchange it. And since we have less space, exchanging the pieces is very much in our favour.

This variation is similar to the Rubinstein Variation that arises after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Nc3/Nd2 dxe4:

,but here Black tries to make an argument that the version with the bishop on g5 is even more favorable because Black will play Be7 and seek to exchange the bishops, too. On the other hand, the bishop does create a potential pin/pressure on the f6 knight. As usual, when it comes to modern chess openings – there are two sides to the same coin.

In any case, the Burn variation continues 5.Nxe4 and now Black has a choice. The “pure” Burn move is 5…Be7, while it is also possible to play the move 5…Nbd7 and transpose to a variation of the Rubinstein defence where White has developed the bishop to g5. In this article, the focus will be on the former, while the latter will be analyzed in greater detail in a separate article devoted to the Rubinstein Variation.

Black plays with f5

After 5…Be7, the knight on e4 is under attack and White’s best way of dealing with the pressure on it is to capture the attacking knight on f6. Experience shows that the move 6. Nxf6 is a bit toothless (and you can check the analysis to see why) and the only challenging move is 6.Bxf6 when Black’s best and most common reply involves capturing with the g-pawn and reaching the starting point of the Burn Variation after 7.Nf3:

At first glance, it is not 100% obvious how Black should develop and where should the king castle. But actually, the quintessential question here is – should Black play the move f5 to kick the knight from e4? There are both pros and cons to this move – on one hand, it does remove the knight from the center and gains some share of space. But on the other hand, the knight can immediately jump to c3 and start preparing ideas connected with the d5 breakthrough. As the analysis and variations demonstrate, this idea has a lot of potential and can lead to some very fascinating lines:

Black plays without f5

As we have just seen, the variation where Black chases the knight away to c3 is not without its dangers due to the tricky knight sacrifice. Therefore, the question is – should Black bother kicking the knight away? What if Black plays without the f5 move and just continues with the development?

It is a legitimate way of playing, but it also has a certain drawback. Namely, with the knight on e4, there is the option of jumping to c5 – especially if Black goes for the standard a6-b5 setups and weakens this square in the process. I am far from the expert of this line, but it seems to me this is the case of going from frying pan to the fire and that Black should decide to play f5 sooner rather than the later. The analysis provided below can partly demonstrate why:

Free Lichess Study devoted to the Burn Variation

Youtube video devoted to the Burn Variation

Free Download of the Burn Variation .pgn file

French Defence Burn Variation

 

Croatia Bulldogs – Saint Louis Arch Bishops, Pro Chess League 2023: Match Report

Croatia Bulldogs – Saint Louis Arch Bishops

After losing a tense match against Shangai Tigers in week 4 of the Pro Chess League and missing the first opportunity to qualify for the playoffs, Croatia Bulldogs would get one more (and final) chance to do so in week 5 of the Pro Chess League. Alas, the task would not be any easier than the last week, since in this must-win situation, we faced the three-time champions of the entire league, the mighty Saint Louis Archbishops, spearheaded by one of the best chess players in the world – GM Fabiano Caruana.

This do-or-die situation for both teams resulted in one of the tensest, most nerve-wracking, and most dramatic matches I have ever witnessed in the Pro Chess League.

The full match report follows.

Team Lineups

In this crucial match, Croatia Bulldogs decided to send the same lineup that brought us the sweet and dramatic victory against team Blitz, as follows:

On the other hand, our opponents decided to do the same and send the very same lineup that brought them victory in their week 4 match:

The team ratings were very much equal (2581 vs 2567  in Bulldogs favour unadjusted, or 2545 vs 2550 in our opponent’s favour adjusted), in my head the Bishops could have been considered as a slight pre-match favourites. Not only because they were led by Fabiano Caruana, but also because GMs Bok and Theorodou are very experienced online players and “blitz specialists”. Last but not least, FM Alice Lee has been playing tremendously the entire season and I was secretly afraid of how she might impact the match – and rightfully so (although I am getting ahead of myself).

On the other hand, our match vs team Blitz demonstrated we don’t necessarily have to fear the very best players in the world and throughout the entire season our team was very much competitive in every single match. Thus, a close and tense match with a lot of twists and turns, ups and downs could have been expected – although what happened on that fateful Thursday afternoon exceeded even the wildest expectations.

A round-by-round report follows.

Round 1

Shuvalova – Caruana

As customary for the Pro Chess League – in the first round of the match, we saw the clashes of the respective team’s boards 1 and 4. For Saint Louis, this matchup went “as expected” since their board 1 Fabiano Caruana managed to score a convincing victory against our board 4 Polina Shuvalova with the help of some nice tactics:

Lee – Bogdan-Daniel

On the other hand, the clash between our board 1 Deac Bogdan-Daniel and our opponent’s board 4 FM Alice Lee didn’t quite go as we wanted. Before the match, I was a little bit afraid of the capabilities of the young 13-year-old talent as she has been enjoying quite a good season so far:

 

Even though Deac managed to outplay his opponent and obtain a clearly won position at some point, at some point he misplayed it and lost most of his advantage:

Even though he was quite okay after that, in the resulting time trouble his opponent managed to pose concrete problems and score a remarkable upset victory:

Theodorou – Inđić

The clash between Theodorou and Inđić was another game that announced that Croatia Bulldogs will not be favored by Caissa on that fatal Thursday. Inđić nicely outplayed the opponent with the Black pieces, but lacked nerves/precision in the tricky technical endgame, allowing Theodorou to save an important crucial half-a-point:

Bardiya – Bok

Last but not least, Bardiya Daneshvar’s first-round game against Benjamin Bok was very customary for the Iranian’s star first-round games this season – solid opening with White, some small pull in the middlegame, good defence by the opponent, and a fair draw. Although the resulting pawn endgame was anything but “routine”:

Thus, after the first round, we already found ourselves trailing by two points (3-1). The match initiative was definitely in our opponents’ hands, although the match was far from over – as the subsequent rounds would demonstrate.

Round 2

Caruana – Daneshvar

In round 2, Fabiano Caruana continued on his warpath by scoring a nice victory with the White pieces over Bardiya Daneshvar. Even though his opening left something to be desired, he nevertheless managed to outplayed the Iranian in the complex middlegame and score another point for the Saint Louis Arch Bishops:

Deac – Theodorou

On the other hand, Deac Bogdan-Daniel managed to recover from his first-round shock against FM Alice Lee by scoring an important victory against Saint Louis’ board 3 Nikolas Theodorou. Even though he was winning almost directly out of the opening, the game became very complicated at some point, until the Greek GM made the final blunder:

Inđić – Lee

Alice Lee’s game against Deac Bogdan-Daniel was surely one of the biggest upsets in the entire Pro Chess League. But in the second round she was to face another very strong grandmaster. Surely, she couldn’t be expected to pull yet another miracle?

Well, even thought she did not win the game – she did come incredibly close. After a complicated opening battle, she stood somewhat better, but Inđić gradually outplayed here. However, at the crucial moment, he made several mistakes and allowed Lee to obtain a clearly won technical position:

By some miracle, Alice didn’t manage to convert to a full-point.

But starting with 1.5/2 against the opponent’s boards 1 and 2 was huge for Saint Louis and definitely one of the key contributors to their overall match victory.

Bok – Shuvalova

Last, but not least, the game between Benjamin Bok and Polina Shuvalova was also quite crazy. Bok decided to go for a very creative idea against Polina’s Semi-Tarrasch, with some attacking prospects on the kingside. However, Polina defended well and put a big question mark on Bok’s play. Alas, at some decisive moments, she hesitated to take the offered material and decided to be more solid, which was sufficient for equality – but not for more:

Thus, after round 2, Saint Louis managed to preserve their 2 point-lead (5-3) and retain the commanding position in the match.

Round 3

Lee – Daneshvar

Despite Saint Louis’ huge lead, we weren’t yet ready to go away and round 3 saw a huge battle that almost resulted in a sensational comeback. First, Bardiya Daneshvar finally put an end to Alice Lee’s good run by scoring a very convincing victory with the Black pieces:

Theodorou – Shuvalova

While Bardiya was winning his game, it appeared that Polina Shuvalova would do the same, as she obtained a completely won position against Nikolas Theodorou’s Catalan. However, in time trouble, she failed to find the best way to continue, allowed the opponent some counterplay and then settled for a draw with seconds on a clock in a position where she is still pretty much winning:

Inđić – Caruana

Even more misfortune awaited us in the game between Inđić and Caruana. The Serbian nr. 1 played a fantastic game and completely outplayed the former World Chess Championship Challenger. However, the win was never easy and at the crucial moment, he went for a hasty queen maneuver:

Even though the resulting position was still equal, Inđić ended up losing the plot and the game. This game was one of the pivotal games of the entire match – had Inđić won this game, we would have entered the last round with an equal score. Alas, Caissa decreed otherwise.

Deac – Bok

To be fair, we did have some luck in this round, since Deac Bogdan-Daniel managed to beat Benjamin Bok while the latter overlooked a simple tactic in time trouble in a drawn position (which he defended extremely well up to that point):

Alas, due to the unfortunate ending of the Inđić game, Saint Louis Arch Bishops retained their 2-point lead going into the final round – and the outcome of the match was seemingly decided.

Round 4

Bok – Inđić

Alas, very early in round 4 it became clear that there will be no comeback, as Inđić – probably tilted from the previous games of the day – run intro trouble very early in the opening and never really got into the game:

Caruana – Deac

In the clash of boards 1, Fabiano Caruana managed to complete the perfect score (4/4) with the help of a nice positional exchange sacrifice:

Daneshvar – Theodorou

The situation could have been even worse for the Bulldogs as Bardiya Daneshvar was also losing at some point in his game against Nikolas Theodorou, but by some miracle he managed to establish a fortress and save the game:

Shuvalova – Lee

Last but not least – Polina Shuvalova managed to score a consolation point against Alice Lee, but it was too late to change the outcome of the match:

Thus, Saint Louis Arch Bishops ended up winning the match with 9-7 and qualifying for the playoffs, while simultaneously ending up our season. It is hard to shake the underlying feeling that we ran out of luck in this match and that the final result doesn’t necessarily reflect the events that happened on the board. But then again – which chess event does?

In the end, the result is the only thing that matters and Saint Louis Arch Bishops were more successful this time. I wish them all the luck in the playoffs! As for us, we are going to a deserved break and will be looking forward to returning even stronger the very next season. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my players and thank them for a very professional and good performance in the season. I would also like to thank chess.com for organizing this event and to their staff for ensuring that everything was running smoothly and like a clockwork.

Lichess Study With All The Games:

Liches Study With Highlights:

My Video Recap with Highlights:

Coming soon