ZIATDINOV TRAINING TIPS

PART ONE: 300 By Hand

By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock

"A chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and a

monk." -- Alexander Alekhine.

To become a chess master you need to memorize 300 essential

positions (found in my book, GM-RAM ). 300 is an approximate
number. A master can play these positions "by hand", a term from
Kasparov which means "without thinking" -- it is instinctual,
immediate and pure.

Recently, researchers used a new magnetic imaging technique to

compare the brains of chess masters with the brains of amateurs.
Their results were stunning. It demonstrated that amateurs grope
and struggle to solve new chess problems, while Grandmasters
rely on "expert memory," recalling similar patterns from
previously played games.

Instead of spending time and energy with new problems, masters

fall back on their memories to cut directly to the heart of the
puzzle to find a solution. According to Grandmaster Jonathan
Speelman, "It's like learning a language. It isn't something you do
consciously. You have a large number of patterns so you can see
viable moves quickly, although you don't know they are good
moves until you check." According to researchers, chess
Grandmasters know approximately 100,000 patterns!

To play chess by hand like Kasparov and Speelman, you need to

know patterns, or what scientists call "memory chunks." To know
by hand the 300 positions given in GM-RAM actually requires you
to know several thousand key patterns which will serve as a solid
foundation for the building of all your future chess knowledge.
However, even if you memorize a dictionary it doesn't mean you
can speak the language.
How these patterns are linked in the brain may be an inborn thing
that cannot be improved through training. Perhaps the networking
of the patterns in the brain makes the difference between the few
Kasparovs of the world, and all the pretenders. Still, until you
memorize essential patterns, you will never approach your full
chess potential.

Suppose we have one master who knows 400 positions and another
who knows 500. Their chances in a game will not be 4:5 because
we must deduct the 300 basic positions they both share, leaving
100:200 (or 1:2). This is a big advantage, especially if the 100
positions of the less knowledgeable player are included in the 200
of the more knowledgeable player. The weaker player has no
chance to win in this case, and this is demonstrated when World
Champions play mere mortals. Fischer's 6-0 scores in his matches
against Larsen and Taimanov, and, more recently, many of
Kasparov's results, show the great advantage in knowing more
positions "by hand" than your opponent. Fischer had been a coach
for Larsen in the 60's, so he knew all of Larsen's key positions. To
increase his chances against a strong master, a weaker master must
be certain his 100 positions are not included in the 200 of his
opponent. If he is really smart, the weaker master, through home
preparation, can try to force the stronger player into unfamiliar
territory. Emanuel Lasker often did this.

You need to know how many positions you can play perfectly by
hand. By perfectly, I mean as far as a human can approach
perfection. You may play a R + K v. K ending and achieve the
correct theoretical result, but a computer would probably find a
shorter way to checkmate (or draw). You should respect the
computer's more efficient path, but it is not mandatory as long as
you get the proper result.

Memorize the positions in GM-RAM . By memorize, I mean

memorization at a level akin to knowing words in one's first
language. If you were raised speaking English, you will never
forget the word hi. Have no doubts about the moves in the
positions and games you memorize.

For training, you need to set up on a board the simple positions

from GM-RAM and, without moving the pieces, "fly" around all
the main lines and sideline variations everyday. There will come a
time when you will feel "how fast your brain is." You must fix this
feeling in your head. This state of mind in which calculations
seem to fly is real chess concentration. You should understand
what it means to think fast, so fast that you do not follow your
own thoughts, so fast your calculations are virtually subconscious.
All strong players achieved this level of concentration when they
were only 5-7 years old. As adults, they cannot comprehend how
untrained players do not see lines and combinations immediately.
For them, chess calculation is so fast they are not even aware of
the process.

How our brains calculate is similar to how computers function.

For example, in DOS operating systems, there exists a first "gold"
megabyte of memory; processors can address and work only with
this first megabyte. They "look" at all extended memory (from 4-
728 MB) through a small (64KB) "window" -- like reading a
newspaper with a magnify glass.

This process is hundreds of times slower than the process of

accessing the first megabyte of memory. Our goal is to setup your
chess knowledge in the first "gold megabyte." The same problem
exists in the creating of all operation systems in computer
business. The first megabyte is so small and algorithms are so big!
Sorry for so many "scientific" explanations (but keep in mind --
every complex problem has an easy to understand wrong
solution!).

An important point is not to create the exact positions from this

book in your games, but to use the general ideas from sample
positions in a concrete way. For example, one idea in K+P v. K
endgames is that if a pawn gives check on the seventh rank, the
game is a draw; if it doesn't check, the strong side wins. There are
thousands of specific positions in which this situation could occur,
but only a couple key describing positions need to be memorized
to deal with all similar positions. You must know these describing
positions "in the middle of night," tired or sick! Only the top 100
players in the world know these ABCs cold; most masters do not
know them thoroughly. Every move of every game I have ever won
is based on these 300 positions!

You can feed an apple tree eight times a day, but an apple will
only come in August (if something comes in March, it will not be
an apple). Mastering chess takes a lot of time. If you started
studying the positions in this book at two years of age, you will be
a master after 15 years of training. There is no short "King's
Road" in chess. You must study the positions GM-RAM every day
to build your chess "BIOS" - this was how Russian chess masters
grew up. Be patient. Play (and enjoy) chess, and "wait for
August."
I do not believe Fischer or Kasparov spent less time studying than
normal mortals; they simply studied their art twenty-four hours a
day, even in their sleep, so it seems that it took less time for them
to achieve mastery. The secret is that normal people lack real
desire and are not able to concentrate on their goal. For
developing players, the most difficult task is to know "by hand"
the key 300 positions of chess.

It is hard to train. Only children can do it quickly; adults can only

train slowly . . . and painfully. A student must find his or her own
way to study the 300 positions. When you are able to play any one
pawn ending without any doubts, you have made a big step
forward in chess mastery.

There is a test to prove when a hunter is ready to hunt a lion: if

the hunter can stand in front of a speeding train until it is only two
meters distance before jumping off the tracks, he is ready to hunt
lions. Likewise, when lines with K + p v. K are flying with the
speed of light in your mind, and you do not have any doubts about
the position, you truly know it by hand - you are ready to hunt
chess lions!

Take your time, do your homework on the basic 300 positions,

play chess at a club and try to write down your thoughts about
your games immediately after they finish, otherwise you will
forget them. This is how you teach yourself chess.

PART TWO: STATE OF MIND

By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock

"A chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and a

monk." -- Alexander Alekhine.

The major problem in chess is concentration. It is a special kind of

concentration requiring special training. Most people believe that
they lose concentration if they are distracted from the actual game,
or are thinking about something else, but more commonly the
absolute opposite is true: they are thinking about the game and
losing concentration. Any blunder is an indication of this. You
may think that you did not lose concentration, but if you made a
mistake, you lost it. Secondly, many mistakes come from choosing
a new move without thinking after spending lots of time on other
ideas. You can hope your slip was not crucial, but it often is.

During his match with Petrosian, Spassky was often asked why he
offered draws when he had a better position. Spassky explained
that if he noticed a mistake in his calculations, even if only in one
sideline, that was a sign that he could not concentrate that day,
and so he preferred to draw the game immediately. Spassky's
insight was eventually rewarded; he became World Champion.

How do you improve your concentration so you make fewer

mistakes during a game? There is only one way: Training.
Thinking during a tournament game should be a pleasant walk in
the park compared to chess training. Like the old military adage
says: War for soldiers should be rest from training!

To start, set up the position after the moves:

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 c5 7.Bb2 Nc6 8.e3 b6 9.Nc3 dxc4
10.bxc4 Bb7 11.d3 Rc8 12.Qe2 Qc7 13.Rad1 a6 14.Ne1 Na7 15.f4 b5 16.g4 Rb8 17.g5
Ne8 18.cxb5 axb5 19.Ne4 Rd8 20.Nf3 Bd5 21.Ne5 f6 22.gxf6 Nxf6 23.Ng5 Qb6
24.Kh1 Bxg2+ 25.Qxg2 Nd5 26.Rf3 Bxg5 27.Qxg5 Qb7 28.Rg1 Nxe3 29.Qh6 Nf5
30.Qxe6+ Kh8

ANALYZE THS POSITION FOR 30 MINUTES!

Now, analyze this position for thirty minutes. Ask yourself what
kinds of forced lines would cross your mind during a tournament
game, and record them. Now, choose what you think is the best
move.

The game score is Dzindzichashvili-Tseshkovsky, Tbilisi, 1973.

Dzindzi was in big time trouble at this point in the game, and his
solution showed amazing fighting spirit. I've always been
impressed with this game, and hope you will be too. Now, turn
away from this article and spend half an hour analyzing the
forcing lines of the position above, then compare your answer to
Dzindzichashvili's.

PART TWO B: STATE OF MIND

Ziatdinov's CHESS BY HAND, PART TWO continues: (CLICK to return to the first part of this article)

He played 31.Rxg7!! Nxg7 32.Kg1 Rd4 [32...Rf5 33.Qh6 Rxe5 34.Bxe5

Qf7 35.Rg3 Rg8 36.Rg5 c4 37.Rh5 Qxh5 38.Qxh5 cxd3 39.Kf2 d2
40.Ke2 Rd8 41.Bxg7+ Kg8 42.Kd1] 33.Bxd4 cxd4 34.Qh6 [34.Ng6+
hxg6 35.Rh3+ Nh5 36.Qxg6 Qg7 37.Rxh5+ Kg8
38. Rg5 Qxg6 39.Rxg6+ Kh8] 34...Kg8 [34...Rc8 35.f5 Re8 36.Rh3
Nxf5 37.Qf6+ Qg7+ 38.Ng6+ Kg8 39.Qxf5 Re1+ 40.Kf2 Rc1
41.Rg3] 35.Rh3 Nf5 36.Qe6+ Kg7 37.Nd7 Qc8 38.Nxf8 Qc1 +
39. Kg2 Qd2+ 40.Kg1 Qd1+ 41.Kf2, 1-0.

How did you do? Did this training exhaust you? Training has to be
difficult so that when you play in a tournament, it will seem easy
by comparison. Be creative with your training. Set up difficult
positions like the one above and try to solve them, write down
everything; or try to solve four positions in twenty minutes, or on
another day, a hundred combinational puzzles in an hour! The
point is that you have to push yourself to exhaustion during
training if you want to improve your concentration and minimize
blunders during real games.

During a tournament game, you must be confident and ready.

Neither afraid nor careless. In every moment, train yourself to be
calm, expectant, and observant. Let your senses be open, your
mind relaxed, your spirit balanced. Meet every challenge with a
firm, yet flexible attitude, centering your attention on determinate
reality. Think only of winning. If you fear the consequences of
failure, you will begin to adjust your decisions and actions to take
into account a possibility of failure. Failure must not be an option.
Fear is the greatest enemy you face, far greater than your
opponent. Fear exists only within your emotions and your
perceptions. It does not have objective reality outside your mind.
If you face a master, it is in fact a master, neither something
greater nor something less. You stand a far better chance against
him with your eyes open and your spirit calm.

Chess players have a particular kind of fear, a primitive brand that

has nothing to do with the fear of poor performance. Poor
performance” just means losing money . The hunter who hunts
lions knows his life and honor are at stake, not money. When I
mention a chess player s primitive fear, I am talking about
instincts stronger than the sex-drive, instincts which trigger the
fight or flight response in all animals. Fear is good, but must
trigger the fight response over the flight. A fighter is brave. He
overcomes fear.

During a chess game, fear is ever-present. Many players (like in

life) succumb to fear and cannot fight. Players like Korchnoi and
Agzamov could overcome their fear. Conquering one's chess fear
doesn't mean not caring about a game situation -- no -- it is to
care, to accept the fear, and play with a sure hand. This bravery
has nothing to do with confidence from what you know, but from
the self-awareness of how little you do know! This cannot be
trained. Teaching will not help. You have to be a born fighter.

PART THREE: CONCRETE CHESS

By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock ”A

chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and a
monk.” -- Alexander Alekhine.
Students sometimes lament that they cannot apply their knowledge
during a game. They cannot apply their "knowledge” because they
really don't have any knowledge! What they have instead are
shortcuts to chess language, what I call ”chess magic spelling”
(like ”open the position if you are more developed”, ”the two
bishop advantage”, ”don't move the queen out too early”, etc.).
These shortcuts are useless generalities. Chess can only be
expressed with concrete variations. This often-ignored concept is
so crucial to mastering chess that it bears repeating with emphasis:
chess can only be expressed with concrete variations!

Imagine a musician who had never heard music, only descriptions

and theories of music; Imagine a dancer who had never physically
performed a pleat or twirl, only read instructions on how to dance.
How is a chess player who relies on ideas expressed in words and
theories any less ridiculous? A musician makes music, a dancer
dances, and a chess player calculates variations!
Please do not ask from chess more then it can give! Strategy,
paradoxical ideas, tactics, opening theory, etc., comprise the
theoretical science of chess, but are not part of the concrete game.
A concrete, real game is BAM! BAM! BAM!

A practical player needs help applying his BAM! BAM! BAM! in a

real game with positions that are not clear. The way of penetrating
such positions is to study chess as one would study any other
language, using only "chess words" -- moves or chains of moves,
not through description like "I have pressure in the center" or "I
am attacking on the king side." Weak players believe in chess
"rules" like they believe in The Bible. They can be helpful, but I
try to teach that rules are only rules, not laws. A law has no
exception; you cannot break it even if you want to. Rules,
however, are meant to be broken!

There are only four possible evaluations of a position: 1-0, 0-1,

1/21/2, and unclear. Many players take issue with this proposition
-- they want to over-intellectualize things, to believe they can
evaluate a position beyond being unclear. They are fooling
themselves. Furthermore, terms like "white is better", "black is
better", and "the position is equal", has no application in pawn
endings whatsoever. Instead, there is only "white wins", "black
wins", or "draw".

How does a slight change in a chess position alter the outcome of

the game? This is an important question in many mathematical
theories. A system's behavior depends on its specific parameters.

If solutions look alike for a different value of parameters, those

values are called "normal", but if there is a special value of
parameters, the solution becomes different; this phenomenon is
called "bifurcation". For example, if the speed of a rocket orbiting
the Earth is more than a certain velocity, the rocket will fly away
from the Earth and never return, but if its speed is just right, the
rocket will orbit the Earth. There is a third point of bifurcation in
when the rocket will crash back to Earth. Finally, there is a special
speed at which the rocket will move in a circular orbit, and one in
which its orbit will be elliptical. The point is that a small change
in parameters creates a big change in results.

For example, take this position:

What happens if white's rook is shifted from f1 to f5? We get

completely different practical results; f5 is a point of
"bifurcation". The position of the white rook acts as a parameter
for this K+R+P v K+R system.

In chess, only points of bifurcation are interesting.

Real chess, interesting chess, starts when you have a choice

between two or more tactically sound moves, and you try to
determine and evaluate their strategic differences. This only
occurs in unclear positions. You can ask the opinion of masters
(but never take it as a final verdict), and build up your own
opinion that you are ready to protect with concrete variations. If
the position has a clear solution, it is not chess but just a puzzle
that can be solved with Fritz.

To cope with unclear positions depends on how many "chess

words" are in your vocabulary, not on how many "rules" you know
and follow. Therefore, you must study concrete positions with
concrete moves. Do not try to find the "King's Way of Geometry"
(from a famous answer of Aristotle to one of the Persian Kings) --
geometry must be learned as geometry, chess as chess, regardless
if you're a king or a beggar, there are no shortcuts; mastery takes
time and effort.
Don't believe that if you didn't find a solution that you must have
missed it; just admit you don't know it. If Capablanca were to play
your position, he would probably solve your problem, but in 99
cases out of a 100, a solution does not exist in unclear positions.
If you lost, it most likely isn't because you failed to find a
solution in an unclear position, it's because you blundered.

I am sure Capablanca made his strategically classical moves based

on calculations, but those calculations were so fast he wasn't even
aware of them. He had trained his ability to calculate from four
years of age (when he first figured out how a Knight moves and
pointed out his father's Knight-move mistake). People said that
Capablanca knew thousands of endgame positions by heart, by
hand: a big vocabulary. His chess calculations functioned much
like how the human brain controls digestion, breathing, and the
beating of the heart -- it is unconscious, like choosing words. In
chess, we say that it is "intuitive".

In MY GREAT PREDECESSORS, VOL 1, Kasparov makes a

strong case that Capablanca lost the World Championship to
Alexander Alekhine because Alekhine played more concretely in
the endings (where precision is more important) than his Cuban
rival. Capablanca had become used to defeating his opponents
relying on generalities rather than concrete variations. He could
not get away with this against Alekhine, and paid a big price for
his laziness.

I do not know exactly how the brain works, but I do know what
kind (and amount!) of calculation a computer processor has to
make just to show you the window on your computer screen. It
leads me to believe that our brain makes at least the same amount
of calculations to solve a chess problem. Moreover, I think the
difference between right and left-brained people is that right-
brained people are thinking faster, and left-brained people think so
slowly that they can control their thinking process.

In short, I want to say that the only way to improve your chess is
to study concrete positions with concrete variations, and get the
feeling that you know a key position completely. This will give
you as much pleasure as I got when I memorized a collection of
English poetry and could read it without any mistakes; I haven't
forgotten a word. Do not forget your chess words!

At the non-master level, do not pay too much attention to your

results; winning and losing is not important. The most import
thing is to learn where your pieces belong on the board and to not
believe that every position has a best move or plan.

PART FOUR:
CHESS MASTERS PLAY DICE

By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock

A chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and a

monk." -- Alexander Alekhine.

Chess is not a gamble -- a gamble is playing chess! Of course,

there are many examples where a game was well prepared and won
"at home" (especially in the practice of Kasparov). Nevertheless,
our brain is so limited that we have to use statistics and odds in a
game. When Quantum theory was introduced, Einstein said, "I do
not believe God plays with dice." He was right, God does not play
dice, but we mortals should!

There are three rules in chess when you battle a strong opponent:

1) It's not possible to win quickly.

2) It's not possible to win slowly.
3) It's not possible to win at all.

Every victory should be considered as winning a gamble. You need

luck to win against a strong opponent, but until you're rated 2200,
you need patience more!

How should a player think at the board to increase his chances of

winning, to get the smile of Lady Luck? If you look too hard for
the best way of thinking (especially during the game) you will
always make frustrating blunders that are far behind your true
chess level. Concentrate on concrete chess, not generalities, and
follow your intuition. My experience shows that you cannot
change the way you think. Any attempt to make your thinking
reasonable and systematic will fail. Kotov's method of calculating,
creating a list of every feasible move (candidates), and examining
each variation of each candidate move only once in a mechanical
order, is too scientific and has little practical use. Do not feel
upset when you cannot follow his steps. Calculating (even
creating) a list of all the candidates during your move is as
impossible as it is unnecessary.

You have to live with the way you think and use what you have.
The process of thinking cannot be changed in a short period, if at
all. We cannot have any illusions about it. I am sure that Kotov
never really thought about a chess position in the manner he
describes. Such rigid advice from any master on how to think
about a chess position is theoretical only, or only works when the
position has an answer that is already known! Some things are
simply not teachable. This reminds me of an old Russian proverb:
An old chess player invited his five sons to his deathbed. He
challenged them each to break one stick. The sons easily
accomplished this task. The father then put all five sticks together,
and challenged the eldest son to break the bundle -- and the eldest
son broke them all at once over his knee. The father's last words
were: "What can I say? All your life you were stupid and you'll
never learn anything." There is only so much a teacher can do;
only so much a student can do!

Instead of trying to conform to a systematic thinking method, do

the following:

1) Build your position starting with your worst piece. Building a

position means to think of each piece as a brick. These bricks have
different shapes, sizes, and weights, and the architect, the player,
must find the most harmonious way to fit them together, logically
first trying to place his worst piece on a better square. When
building a position, we are talking about situations to which there
is no clear solution.

2) Look for simple 1-2 move combinations ala Capablanca.

3) Try to get into your opponent's head to predict his next move
and save time. During a chess game, you must consider your
opponent's plans. Have you thought about what he wants to do, or
are you just examining your own ideas? If you keep your
opponent's desires constant in your mind, you will not miss his
tricks (but people forget this every time). During the game, you
must not only be as good as your opponent, but better.

There is a joke: a Russian and an American were in the desert

running away from a lion. Suddenly, the American stops and starts
to change his shoes. The Russian laughs and says, "You think
Adidas will help you run faster than the lion?"

"No," the American replied, "I only have to run faster than you!"
This joke describes a real chess game perfectly.

When you play chess, you must get inside your opponent's head;
think how he thinks, sit like he sits, feel what he feels. You must
study your opponent and know his move before he makes it. This
is crucial for victory. When it is your opponent's turn, you do not
have free time -- it is time to examine your adversary. This
psychological technique (called mirroring) is difficult to practice,
but if you are patient and really study the opponent, you will see a
lot; you'll know what moving his hand to get a pen means!
Position Building, waiting for simple 1-2 move combinations, and
reading the opponent, are your only duties during a tournament
game.

Usually, the result is decided by time-trouble mistakes. This is

where chance and blind luck rear their heads in chess. Players
have no time to think, so playing quickly and having more time
than your opponent is a big advantage. Learn to play fast. Think
on your opponent's time! The clock is a major part of the game,
and time pressure on your opponent (by making fast moves) plays
a big role in deciding the outcome of a contest between two
equally strong opponents. Actually, I believe the secret of winning
tournament games is to win on time! Try to play the first ten
moves in ten minutes; the game doesn't usually start until move
twenty, at which point you must simply wait to take advantage of
your opponent's mistakes.

Do not get into time trouble yourself! A chess game is a time for
action, not thinking. Think before the game. Alekhine had said
that using time trouble as an excuse for a loss was like a criminal
pleading that he was drunk during a crime, which is really two
crimes: being drunk and committing the crime! Time trouble is a
psychological problem, not a chess problem. It is usually caused
by fear, indecision, or some other human weakness not related to
chess. Discover the source of your time trouble, and root it out.

How long should a player spend on a move? As much time as is

necessary to be certain the move is not losing! One thing that
might help is to keep in mind that you will play this position many
times in the future, and you will have a chance to try other
interesting moves later. What you have to be certain about is that
your move is not a blunder. Your own excitement generated by
your ideas will often make you forget to check for simple
mistakes. Make your move only when you are certain about it.
Virtually all mistakes are the result of simple one-move blunders.

You need a "mathematical", Kotov-like way of thinking for

situations that require great patience to check all possibilities (like
in rook or pawn endings or closed middle games); otherwise, you
will miss important issues of a position. Sometimes these issues
are anti-intuitive and belong to the world of imagination.

Tempi are important in every chess position, but especially in

closed positions. Lines for your pieces are blocked, so you may
not have time to defend yourself. You have to be precise. In these
situations you must try to check all possible moves -- the
"mathematical" way of chess! This can be done by the human
brain, but only in two situations: (1) when there are only four
pieces on the board (five for a genius!), and (2) if the human
already knows the solution.

In this second case I am talking about the positions already in a

player's vocabulary that fly in the mind at light speed and are
known "by hand." Not even great players like Alekhine can
mathematically examine a position involving more than four or
five pieces without errors.

I am against abstract opening preparation for a tournament game,

but advocate deep preparation against concrete opponents. You
must not play without preparation against unknown adversaries;
Russian roulette is not my kind of game (in Russia we call it
American roulette!). Chess is a gamble, so stack the odds with as
much knowledge about your opponent as possible. Preparation
should be made for every game, even five-minute club games.
Make guesses about the stream of the game and which opening
will occur; after the contest, you can compare your pre-game
thoughts with what really happened. This practice will improve
your ability to guess correct moves and read your opponent. The
more games you play with a little preparation, the better your
future preparation and games will be. During a game, you cannot
think deeply; chess is not a time for thinking, it is time for action;
it is show time!

To prepare for a chess game, analyze every one of your moves

from previous games for positions you are likely to encounter in
the upcoming game. Examine your own games everyday. You
should remember them all. Also, memorize the games of masters
who play your opening.

When analyzing your own games, ask these questions:

1. Who before me played this line?

2. Where will I play differently next time?
3. Where was the last mistake of the game?
4. How many mistakes did I make?
5. How many mistakes did my opponent make?
6. Why did I spend so much time on this move?
7. What else could I do differently?
8. What does my computer "think" about these different
possibilities?
If you had followed the wrong plan, accept it, figure out where
you went astray, and remember the right path for next time. After
awhile, you will realize that your chess games are not unique and
that very similar positions have occurred many times before. Of
course, a unique position requires you to think (but I have never
encountered completely singular positions in my practice).

If you go astray and lose a pawn, do not despair. According to Dr.

John Nunn, being a pawn up is not enough of an advantage (in
master level chess) for winning a game. The materially stronger
side always allows counter play. You should use this secret in your
own games; a pawn up or down does not determine the outcome of
a game. Even Capablanca said that the best strategy when having
an extra pawn is to win a second one!

For practical over-the-board play, try to be in the state of mind as

described by the five steps below:
1. Observing your opponent, waiting for tactics to begin.
2. You are not attacking or defending; you are neither aggressive
nor passive.
3. You do not make up your mind to act until the appropriate time.
4. The ability to focus is your greatest asset in the game. When
you appreciate the power of focus, you will feel the way of
thinking of your opponent and maintain control of his actions.
5. Be prepared to act if the opportunity arises. This requires
courage and patience, order and flexibility.

PART FIVE:
 TACTICS vs. STRATEGY

By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock "A

chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and a
monk." -- Alexander Alekhine.

I teach practical tournament chess. When it comes to tactics, I

believe only in clear 1-2 move combinations. These combinations
occur in every game, even between strong players, but most people
cannot wait for simple combinations. Developing combinational
patience is a major problem for all practical players.
Chess is not a game that goes according to "The Plan” that has
been prepared at home, nicely implemented during the game, won
by an amazing combination, and the score sent to God for
Judgment Day. A chess game is a gamble (when you play a strong
opponent). Pure gambling is based on tactics.

In chess, there is strategy and tactics. Strategy involves long-term

concepts, while tactics are immediate. Strategy is academic and
theoretical; tactics are practical and concrete. You can win without
strategy. If you do not apply effective tactics on every move, you
will not survive long. No amount of planning for the next few
moves does any good if your forces are destroyed in the current
position. This does not mean that long-term strategy is not
important, particularly as a context for tactics, but the outcome of
most games boils down to which person sees better tactically in
the present situation.

Tactics are concerned with taking appropriate action at the

appropriate time. "Appropriate," not "right." The word "right"
implies that you can know what the outcome of your actions will
be. Historians make generals into geniuses. In the midst of battle
with all its unknowns, a general can only do his best based on the
information he has at the moment.

"A good idea executed promptly today is worth a dozen perfect

ideas executed next week. -- General Patton

This is the essential difference between strategic planning and

tactical action. Strategy should not be a subject of inquiry for the
non-master. No strategy! Absolutely none! Only amusing,
paradoxical tactical tricks should be investigated. Chess is a funny
tactical game of two-move combinations and unexpected
endgames.

It is very easy to confuse having an advantage with having the

initiative. Initiative seems like having an advantage, but this is a
chimera, for the initiative can be neutralized. Having the
advantage means that, in principle, you cannot lose (and that you
can at least force a draw). Just because you have an advantage
doesn't mean that you have a winning, tactical combination.
Combination depends on the precise position of the pieces; a shift
of a pawn can determine the correctness of a combination. Many
players, even strong ones, believe there must be a combination if
one side has the advantage, but this is often untrue. If a good
tactical player does not find a clear win, there is
no combination yet; he must patiently improve his position and
wait for a chance to strike. Is he afraid that his advantage will
disappear? No! Initiative can disappear, but not an advantage. If it
does dissipate, he never had an advantage in the first place, and no
right for a combination.

To study tactics, I recommend my timed tactical software program,

or similar software programs. A good book of combinations is
beneficial too, but less efficient and not as fun. Basically, set up a
cycle of ten positions, go through them until you get a perfect
score, then set a cycle from 10-20, get a 100% score, then go
through problems 1-20, repeating this cycle until you can go
through 1000 problems "by hand" (not mind) without any
mistakes. If you try this method with my tactics program and
complete it, you will have the tactical ability of a Grandmaster. I
have had more than a hundred students and nobody had enough
will power to finish this tactical training method. Is it my students
or is it me? Well, take only thirty minutes a day and slowly
memorize 1000 problems; take a year or two if you have to. It
comes down to will power, and that I cannot provide.

Another effective method for improving your chess tactics is blitz

chess. It is a great training tool, but you must play five-minute
games as if they are one-minute games, otherwise it makes no
sense. Pros don't consider five-minute games as blitz at all -- one,
two, or three-minute games, yes, that is blitz! More than three
minutes is only entertainment for retired people. Blitz is about
developing tactical bravery and intuition. If you are able to play
five-minute games as one-minute games, you are doing right, if
not, it is only wasting time. If you lost a lot of training time in
childhood for developing your tactical feelings, I think fast games
would be helpful, but do not take your results too seriously.
Practice this form of tactical training and then analyze your chess
"instincts" after the game with a computer.

Computers have greatly influenced how chess is played, from

mega databases of games, the Kasparov-Deep Blue match, Internet
chess, to Grandmaster strength software you can purchase in
convenience stores. Probably the best program you can buy is
Fritz, which Kasparov uses to help him analyze. Chess programs
like Fritz are helpful, but there is a danger in over-using them, a
pitfall in computer analysis one should keep in mind. Fritz can
change its evaluation of a position at any second (it depends on
the position). Even if you give it ten hours, you cannot be sure
how it would evaluate the position after ten hours and one second.
A move which it deems sound after ten hours might be bad after
ten hours and one second! Only human chess intuition can help.

The question "What is chess?" is a very good question, and

computers can help us answer it! Rules are theoretically correct in
many cases, but knowing this will not help you play chess. If you
have 300 chess rules, the first 150 will usually contradict the
second 150. Don't base your game on impractical rules. Fritz's
approach of concrete variations and evaluations is more practical
(which does not necessarily mean more theoretically correct, but
we are concerned with results, not theory!)

Recently, I played with odds (I gave one Knight) against a 2000

rated player. He did not make blunders, he understood strategy and
the common general rules of chess, but I managed to defeat him (I
had covered my pieces from exchange behind pawns, and he
blundered). In America, I played several games with 1500-rated
players with rook odds. You should find out how much of a
material advantage you need to beat a strong master, or Fritz. This
is a great way to use technology to gauge your strength.

The following are fifteen tips for playing good blitz games to
improve your tactics and intuition:
1. Chess is not a house built of common sense and "logic."
2. You should go where you should go -- this is the best definition
of blitz chess.
3. Examine the starting position, all the pieces on their initial
squares. There is no hint of battle, and you will never come to
believe that in three to four moves you would be compelled to say,
"I cannot play at all! The secrets of chess strategy and tactics are a
closed book for me." This should never happen! Chess is a very
simple game. Remember, you will never set up a better position
than the start position. Keep it this way: pawns first and pieces
behind them, this is the right way to play blitz chess, and comes
from Philidor with his maxim: "Pawns are the soul of chess!"
4. There is no place for kindness in chess. Only show kindness to
hide your real intentions.
5. The first rule of the opening in blitz chess is putting pieces into
the center. However, if there is only one piece in the center, it will
be quickly kicked out, so you must have a gang of pieces in the
center. Centralize a pawn, Knights, Bishops, and after that, drive
them further into the opponent's position.
6. The coordination of the pieces is a crucial component of blitz
chess. Coordination means that your pieces work together to
control more squares in the board, like in hedgehog-type positions.
After 1.e4 e5,
keep the cl-Bishop but get rid of the Bishop on f1 because the
pawn at e4 does White's light-squared Bishop's job (same with
the d4-pawn and the dark-squared Bishop).
7. Now, after a few seconds, the opening is over and we enter the
middle-game. There are a few tools to guide our play a) attack on
the flanks b) attack the King c) maneuvering d) strategic plans, if
you have an intellect, but it is not necessary for blitz-chess. D1) If
you do not have an intellect you must have the will to win; this is
even better then intellect e) look for an active pawn move toward
the Queen, f) if you can't find anything, make a long, stupid move,
like moving a line piece from one end of the board to the other.
There is a chance the opponent will spend time trying to find the
reasons behind your move.
8. "Greedy," cowardly chess players will never win.
9. Remember, the move of your hand must be faster than your
thoughts.
10. Never go where you look, and never look where you go.
11. If your opponent forgets to push the clock, make a
contemplative expression and start to think as if it's your turn --
you'll gain time or maybe even win on time.
12. When you reach an ending, make any move that is closer to the
clocks, but you must mix it with stupid long moves.
13. Chess players are only human; we're born to
make blunders. Exploit your opponent's mistakes.
14. Wishing to play perfect chess is a way to lose . . . perfectly.
15. Remember, any Knight can take any Bishop, but not the other
way around. Knights are better than Bishops in blitz chess; they're
more valuable because the Knight's move is so unpredictable and
"unnatural." With so little time, they become monsters.
PART SIX:
HOW TO STUDY MASTER GAMES

By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock

"A chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and a

monk." -- Alexander Alekhine.

For grandmaster games, it is best to look at how they play against

weaker opposition. Study their ways of attack. Against equally
strong players, masters use too much psychology to be useful to
the chess student. Strong opposition forces grandmasters to divert
from "normal" ways of playing. They all know the basic rules of
strategy and tactics so well that the only way for them to win is by
making strange, surprising moves. Weak opponents can be stunned
with "normal," classical moves, but strong players know all the
standard tricks. Study Shirov and Tal against weak opposition and
you can learn the classical, standard ways of chess.

It is a very good idea to memorize the games of masters. Repeat

games until they become automatic (same as the word hi in
English). Replaying games in the mind is also beneficial. You can
go through games in your head when you're walking, waiting in
line, going to sleep and especially watching TV (though I don't
recommend you practice this technique while driving a car).
When I was in Moscow and had to walk thirty minutes to work, I
memorized Arabic prayers. I am not a religious person; I did it for
fun and to surprise a few of my old friends who had tried to
"teach" me religion. I cannot talk in Arabic at all, but I used a
tape-recorder and a small piece of paper to memorize the prayers.
It was difficult, but slowly it became easier. You must have will
power, because the human mind will take advantage of every
opportunity to be lazy. I learned English the same way, through
diligent repetition. Before 1995, I could not speak any English. At
this time, family from Holland came and lived with me in
Uzbekistan. So, I could not speak English and they could not
speak Russian. During my long walks to my job where I taught
mathematics, I memorized English poetry. Finally, I understood
English better than the kids from Holland (they were ten and
twelve-years-old) that had learned Russian. I am sure now that the
dumber the mental exercise, the faster you can learn! Our brain
does not like practical things.

Chess games give me a lot of pleasure. Playing through the games

of strong masters is thrilling, even if I already know the result of
the game. Usually I try to understand why five possible moves
were not made, rather than why the actual move in the game was
made. Evaluating candidates that were not made often gives more
information than evaluating the move that was actually played.
The easiest and most effective method of training is when you are
guessing the moves of a strong player. It has to be really guessing,
do not try to "understand" (the attitude of "understanding" is
wrong in a training session). Enjoy guessing, do it playfully and
have fun.

If you choose a move not played in the game, you must be sure
that your "teacher" at least considered your move. You should be
upset if your guess was wrong, but your error has nothing to do
with not "understanding" chess and everything to do with your
chess vocabulary. You should be very upset if you missed a tactic
or guessed a blunder.

Every game in which you guess moves should take about four to
six hours. If you are not able to finish such a long session, stop
and continue at the next session, but do not rush to get to the end.
Do not hurry even if you're sure about the next move -- and again,
enjoy the solution. It is a kind of meditation. You can sit for hours
trying a few possibilities in your head. Maybe your "teacher" is
stronger than you, but you do have one big advantage -- unlimited
time; this makes you equal. Do not debate which move is better,
yours or his (for it must be clear -- if you did not find the master's
move, you are wrong). For this exercise, you need a cold,
objective attitude. To attempt this guessing- game, training
without a master sitting beside you is a very difficult task. I have
not met a player rated below 2200 who could demonstrate this
attitude for a training session. Instead, everyone wants to be
shown the correct move to "understand" it. Russian chess masters
discuss concrete moves and variations, but never try to
"understand" them.

There are no good systems in studying or playing chess. There are

systems of course, but only for "How to be a 1200 Player"
(probably the best level for a chess fan -- they can enjoy chess and
have a normal life). Students who study chess with good teachers
learn more about having a confident, winning attitude (which does
help) than actual chess. Although there are no perfect systems for
studying our royal game, guessing the moves of masters is a tried-
and-true method that will improve your chess.

PART
SEVEN:
OPENINGS

By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock

"A chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and a

monk." -- Alexander Alekhine.
In chess, people are afraid to ask the "right" questions. The main reason for this is
that they don't know enough to ask the right questions-- it's a vicious circle. Asking
about openings is not the right question. For example, let's say an art student asked
his teacher, "Should I use green paint from company A or from company B?" In the
store, he saw paints from those big companies and his question seems apt because
he wants the best paint. Nevertheless, for a master artist it is not an important
question; more important is what he wants to do with his green paint. To play the
opening is easy and doesn't require complicated variations, all that is needed is to
know a simple law discovered over 150 years ago: Develop all of your pieces!
A few times in the past, I tried to play semi-open games, but could not get out my
pieces "for a fair fight." It takes many years to understand the difference between
"green paint" from company A and "green paint" from company B; don't worry
about where the green paint comes from, worry about what to do with it.

Timman - Jusupov [C43]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Bd3 Nd7

One of the standard positions, and white has several "normal" moves. "Which side is
better" is a stupid question!

6. Nxd7

Reasonable alternatives abound: 6.0-0, 6.Bf4, 6.Nc3, 6.c4, etc.

6.. .Bxd7 7.0-0 Be7
The first critical moment for black is approaching. Should he castle long or short?
Most prefer ...0-0-0.

8.Qf3

This move looks "ugly" and is a sign of how unclear "chess rules" are. No less a
player than Timman made this move! It is difficult to believe that he does not know
the rules of chess openings. It is actually an example of psychological chess. In
games between two strong players, we can only be entertained (yes, with great
pleasure!) but cannot learn the basic rules of chess. Timman wanted to surprise his
opponent and force him to think over the board--and Timman did a good job of this.
He beat Yusupov in 31 moves. Yusupov was tired (as they say) and made a big
blunder in time trouble.
8.. .0-0! 9.Bxe4

After 9.c3 Bd6 10.Bxe4 dxe4 11.Qxe4 Black has a "nice" position but there are no
direct ways to win the game or even take the pawn back. The pawn can be won back
by "slowly" attacking d4 and the kingside (Petrosian said, "To win fast, play
slow!").

9.. .dxe4 10.Qxe4 Bc6 11.Qg4 f5 12.Qd1 Qd5 13.f3 Rfe8 14.c3 Or 14.Nc3 Qc4

15.Bf4 Bf6.

14.. .Bb5 15.Re1 Bh4

I gave this example to demonstrate how grandmasters play the opening, and why
students shouldn't try to imitate such psychological play. You can study the Sicilian,
the Reti, or the Grob--I prefer to study chess. Timman's provocative
8. Qf3 breaks an opening rule: Do not move the queen too early. She is a
powerful piece and usually should not be moved until you know for sure where to
put her after several moves. However, isn't "don't move the Queen too early" an
example of "chess magic spelling?" A generality? There is no contradiction! It's
okay to break rules if you have concrete, definite reasons to do so. Nevertheless, if
your opponent breaks such "rules" for no good reason when you have done nothing
wrong, you must punish him.

PART EIGHT
HOW I THINK (AND DON'T THINK)
By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock

"A chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and a

monk." -- Alexander Alekhine.
The following are some games I played in Kostroma. Here, I want to show how many lines
and thoughts pass through my mind; you will see that when it comes to detailed variations,
not a lot. Keep in mind that if I do not comment on a move, it means I did not think, I just
automatically moved a piece, recorded the move, and hit the clock.

For the most part, my calculations are done by hand, at a subconscious level -- I am not
even aware of how I decided on them. Here is the funny part: you should examine the
moves that you are interested in that I am not interested in. This way you can see which
moves resonate with you at a subconscious level, which will then show you what kind of
positions and moves you need to work on. Kasparov divides players based on what kind of
problems they can solve. You need to know what positions you are best at.

In the following games, I did not try to make clever annotations (this is goal number one
for any annotations from a Grandmaster!), instead I want to give you an honest idea about
what really occurs in a master's head.

This first game was against a young lady (about 20 with a 1999 Elo). She was a blonde-
haired girl, and, at the time, she had terrible blemishes on her face. I had so much pity for
her. All the time I wanted to ask, "Maybe I can help?" but she was with an old woman and
a young man all the time, and I was sure they could take care of her. This is what crossed
my mind!

Miss NN (1999) - Ziatdinov [D63]

Kostroma, 2004
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 a6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 c6
10.0-0 Re8 11.a3 Nf8 12.b4 Bg4 13.Na4 Ne4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7

I noticed my threat of ...Bxf3 when Qxf3 runs into ...Nd2.

15. Be2 Rad8

I made my move immediately, but now I am thinking to attack with my Rook on the sixth
(or third) rank, having no pawns for support is not a good idea at all. Philidor taught that
pawns must go first and then pieces behind them. I should be patient and prepare moves
with f- and g-pawns with Rooks behind them (Rooks on e- and f- or g-files).

16. Nc5 Rd6 17.Nd2 Bxe2?

I did this immediately and now I am sure it is absolutely the wrong strategy! I should keep
this Bishop for attack (sacrifice it on h3 or attack g2 later). It looks so simple now and why
I traded pieces, I cannot explain. Probably ...Bc8 was looking like a bad retreat, but it is
not. I think it is my laziness to create threats as fast as possible.

18. Qxe2 Rh6

This move looks so ugly to me now, but I had no doubts during the game.

19. Nf3 g5?

This look so stupid! How could I have done that? My fear about white's a4-b5 paralyzed
my mind.
Pushing forward here is the wrong strategy for making threats. I forgot about f4
completely.
20.Ne5 f6 21.Ned3 Qc7
22. f4

Actually, even here I was still thinking I am better! The hypnosis of the e3-pawn covered
my eyes.

22.. .Ng6

Even worse than the previous moves. I am still thinking I am OK!

23. g3 Qe7

I continue my happy blind walk. I was sure I am about to win a pawn.

24. Nxe4

Here I was still far from reality. I savored my position for a few seconds, and then played

24.. .Qxe4??

24.. .dxe4 was the only way to survive.

25. Nf2

I AM DOOMED!

Only here did I realize that my goose was cooked. Now I looked at many lines;
everywhere my rook is lost. Nevertheless, I did not find ...Kg7 in some simple lines, giving
up my Rook for her Knight; I just did not see it.

25.. .Nxf4

25...Qe7 26.Ng4 Kg7.

26. gxf4 Qxd4

I was sure Rfdl was winning, but she quickly played ...

27. exd4? Rxe2 28.fxg5?

I became happier (if it's possible to use this word in such a position) and happier!

28.. .fxg5 29.Rce1 Rhe6 30.Rxe2 Rxe2

Now I was sure that I would not lose the game.

31.Rd1 Kg7 32.Rd3 h5 33.Kg2 Kf6 34.Kf3 Rb2 35.h3 a5

I had many doubts about this due to 36.bxa5 Rb5 and 37.a6, and only when I found

37.. .b6 did I play my move.

36.bxa5 Rb5 37.Ke3

But now she is playing without any thinking at all

37.. .Rxa5 38.Rb3 Kf5 39.Nd3 g4 40.hxg4+ hxg4 41.Nf2

I spent time for 41...g3 and 41...c5. Probably after 41...g3 she will lose the game but I
started to play against myself, not a 1900-rated girl

41.. .c5 42.dxc5 Rxc5 43.Kd4 Rc2

Her goal was to draw and she made one by the shortest path.

44.Nxg4 Kxg4 45.Kxd5 Ra2 46.Rxb7 Rxa3, 1/2-1/2.

Ziatdinov - Nozdrachev (2000) [B07]

Kostroma, 2004

1.e4

My opponent was a young boy about 14 years old.

1.. .d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg5 Bg7 5.Qd2 0-0 6.Bh6 Bxh6

To "invite" the Queen to be around his King is a very dangerous idea.

7.Qxh6 c5 8.d5 a6
There are big problems on his kingside and ...a6 is too slow a plan. To find a way to kick

12...h5 13.gxh5 Nxh5 14.f5.

out the Queen should be his first priority, but the boy is "attacking" instead.

9. Nf3 b5 10.Ng5

Now his King is packed in and it is hard to find a way to help him.

10.. .Qa5 11.h4 b4 12.e5

I had no doubts about this move.

12.. .dxe5 13.Nce4 Nbd7

Here I spent some time. The most natural plan is to open the h-file, but killing the f6-
Knight with Rh1-h3-f3 was tempting, too. I thought that both plans win, and decided to go
with the more natural way (and my attack on the third rank was still a bad memory from
round one).

14.h5

14.Rh3 b3+ 15.c3 Qxa2 16.Rd1 Qxb2 17.Rf3.

14.. .Bb7 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.Bc4

I did look at winning material by 16.Nxh7 Kf7, but (after 16.Bc4) I wanted to checkmate
him with 18.e6+ Kh8 19.Qxh7+ Nxf7 20.Rxh7 mate.

16.. .Rfe8, 1-0. Nothing to think about at all!

My next opponent is a man about 30.

N.N. (2000) - Ziatdinov [D00]
Kostroma, 2004
1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nbd2 c5 7.c3 b6 8.Ne5 Ba6 9.Bxa6 Nxa6
10.Qf3

I did not take this attack seriously.

10.. .b5 11.g4 Rc8

After the game I liked 11...e6 more. Maybe I will find a better place for the rook and, more
importantly, I would have ...h5 against h4. I am still thinking his attack is not strong (for a
win, of course, for a draw, it is enough) but ...h5 could stop it forever. Still, it is not
important.

12. h4 b4

12...h5 13.gxh5 Nxh5 14.f5.

13. h5 bxc3 14.bxc3 cxd4 15.exd4!

White's position is better than I had thought, and now I am not happy with my Queen
move. Never play with the Queen! It's a lack of patience.

15.. .Qc7?!

I don't like 15...Nc7 16.f5 but 15...e6 16.hxg6 hxg6 17.f5 exf5 18.gxf5 Re8 19.fxg6 fxg6
might be best.

16.Rh3 e6 17.Ba3

Absolutely the wrong direction, and gives black tempi to improve his Queen stranded
on the bad square c7 (blocking two pieces and attacking nothing). He should have tried
17. hxg6 hxg6 (17...fxg6 is better) 18.f5 exf5 19.gxf5 Nd7 20.Nxg6 fxg6 (20...Rfe8+
21.Kf1 Nf6 22.Ne5 Nc5 23.Ba3 Nce4 24.Nxe4 dxe4 25.Qg3) 21.Qxd5+.

17.. .Rfe8 18.Ke2??

18. Kf2 Qa5.

18.. .Qa5 19.hxg6 hxg6 20.g5

This is panic, but it should not be. His position cannot be lost with only one mistake (do not
confuse mistakes with blunders). 20.Bc1 was better, but Black will greatly improve his
position with ...Nc7-b5.

20.. .Ne4 21.Bb2 Bxe5

Sure, I had a lot of doubts about giving up this bishop, and it took a lot of time to decide on
this move.

22.fxe5 Qb5+ 23.Ke3 Qxb2 24.Nxe4 dxe4 25.Rah1 Rxc3+ 26.Kxe4 Qb7+ 27.Kf4 Rxf3+
28. Rxf3 Rd8 29.Rd1 Nc5 30.Re3 Qb4, 0-1.
Ziatdinov (2308) - A Reshetnikov (2000) [B30]
Kostroma, 2004
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e6 4.Bxc6 bxc6 5.b3 Ne7 6.Bb2 f6

I did not prepare for this line at all, I just knew a few games that took this general direction
7.0-0 7.Nh4 d5.

7.. .Ng6 8.d4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Qc7

Here I became happy and started to like my position

10. c4 Bd6

There are three moves here and it is not possible to say which is better.

11. Kh1 a6 12.Nc3 0-0

Sure, I have to double my Rooks on the d-file, but I was too lazy to find the shortest way
for that plan. 13.g3 looks suspicious, but my Queen needed a haven on e2

13.g3 Bb7 14.f4 c5 15.Nf3 f5 16.e5 Be7 17.Qe2 Nh8 18.h3 h6

I thought that he does my job by opening the g-file.

19. Kh2 g5 20.Rad1 gxf4 21.gxf4 Kh7 22.Qd2 Rad8 23.Ne2

BLACK FALLS IN LOVE WITH HIS PAWN STRUCTURE

I knew he would not "break" his "wonderful" pawn structure by playing ...d6. Still, ...d6
was worrying me, and I was actually thinking black was better now.
23.. .Qc6

23.. .d6 24.Qe3 Ng6 25.exd6 (25.Rg1 Rg8) 25...Bxd6 26.Ne5 Bxe5 27.Bxe5 Qc6
(27...Nxe5 I only looked at this, and was hoping for the Knight on f4 28.fxe5) 28.Qf2 Nxe5
29.fxe5.

24. Bc3
I was happy and do not know why. 24...d5 looks so good for black and what does white
have?

24.. .Ng6

Probably I was right about his love for his pawn structure, which looks strong and
powerful, and love is blind. Far stronger is 24...d6 25.Ba5 Rd7 and 24...d5.

25. Ba5 Nh4 26.Neg1

This was the only position I saw when I played Qd2. It looks a little scary for White, but I
saw that his Rook (which soon goes to g2) would lose material for him.

26.. .Rg8 27.Bxd8 Rg2+ 28.Qxg2 Nxg2 29.Bxe7 Ne3 30.Rfe1 Nxdl 31.Rxd1

He liked his pawn structure so much that even after the game he was sure he was OK here.
He was a young fifteen-year-old boy and later did well in the tournament.

31.. .Qc7 32.Rd2 Bc6 33.Bf6 Kg6 34.Rg2+

This move took time. Can you find how to checkmate if 34...Kh5? I was happy when I did
find it; I spent a lot of time on 34...Kh5 35.Rg8 Qa5 and found nothing.

34.. .Kh5 35.Nh4, 1-0.

My next opponent was a nice boy from Kazanj. He was about sixteen; I always notice the
ages of whom I am playing.
B Modestov (2360) - Ziatdinov (2426) [E06]
Kostroma, 2004
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 c6 7.b3 b6 8.Nbd2 a5 9.Bb2 Bb7
10.Ne5 Nfd7 11.e4 Nxe5

He offered a draw here.

12. dxe5 d4 13.a4

I did not want a blocked position with c5; it looks solid, but is too drawish.
13.. .Qd7

I felt I needed a rook on d8 first.

14. Re1 Na6 15.Bf1 d3

I could not let him block my pawn by Bd3.

16.Bc3
I spent a lot of time on ...Bb4 and could not decide which was better, ...Nb4 or ...Bb4.
With ...Nb4 at least I will get the bishop pair.

16.. .Nb4 17.Bxb4 Bxb4 18.Re3 Qc7 19.Nf3 d2 20.Ra2 Rfd8 21.Nxd2 Qxe5 22.Qe2

I had the feeling that I was winning -- this is, again, my lack of patience and why I made a
mistake on the very next move.

22.. .Rd7 23.Nf3 Qh5??

I should grab the d-file and find a way to take the b3-pawn, combining it with an attack on
f2, g2, h1, and/or e4. Both 23...Qc5 and 23...Qc7 made more sense.

24.Rd3 Rad8 25.Rxd7 Rxd7 26.Ra1

I did miss this, and now I have lost control over the d-file, forcing me to trade rooks, losing
3 tempi!

26.. .Qc5

With 26...c5, I was sure that only White can be better after it. I needed to trade Queens to
keep the initiative 27.Rd1 Rxd1 28.Qxd1 h6 29.Qd3 f6 30.Bg2 Bc6.

27. Rd1 Rxd1 28.Qxd1 Qd6 29.Qxd6 Bxd6

I was still sure I was quite a bit better, but with Rooks and Queens it would be much
 easier.
30. Bd3 e5

To stop e5 and Be4.

31. Kf1 Kf8 32.Ne1 Ke7 33.Ke2 Bb4 34.Nc2 Bc3

34.. .Kd6 35.Nxb4 axb4 36.Ke3 Kc5 37.f4 f6 38.f5 Bc8 39.h4 Bd7 40.g4 Be8 41.Be2 Bf7
42.g5 b5 43.gxf6 gxf6 44.a5!

35.c5 bxc5 36.Bc4 Bc8 37.Ne3 g6 38.Kf3 h5 39.Kg2 f5

I do not see how to win this position: 39...Bd4 40.Bd3 Bxe3 (40...Be6 41.Nc4 Bc3) 41.fxe3
Be6 42.Bc4 Bxc4 43.bxc4 Kf6 44.Kf3 Kg5 45.h4+ Kf6 46.Kg2 g5 47.Kf3 gxh4
48. gxh4 Kg6 49.Kg3 f5 50.Kf3 Kf6 51.exf5 Kxf5 52.e4+.

40.exf5 gxf5 41.f4 Bd4 42.Nc2 Be6 43.fxe5 Bd5+ 44.Kh3 Bxe5 45.Ne1 f4? 46.Nd3 fxg3?
47.hxg3

He did not want to think at all. 47.Bxd5 cxd5 48.Nxe5 gxh2 49.Kxh2 Kd6 50.Nf7+ Kc6
51.Ne5+=.

47.. .Bd6 48.Kh4 Bf3

I was sure now I have chances to win.

49. Nc1 Be5 50.Be2 Bf6+ 51.Kh3 Bd5 52.Bxh5 c4 53.bxc4 Bxc4 54.Bd1 Kd6 55.Nb3
I did not like to go for ...Bxb3 due to his maneuver of his King to the queenside, and he
was sure I would never go in for an opposite Bishops ending.

55.. .Bd8 56.Kg4

56. Nd2 Bd3.

56.. .Kd5 57.Kh5??

57. Kf3 was a must. Of course the King should go to the queenside -- there is only one
reason against the kingside trip -- it is definitely lost, but Kf3 is "only" probably lost.

57.. .c5 58.Kg6 Bxb3 59.Bxb3+ c4 60.Bc2 Kd4 61.Kf7 Kc3 62.Bf5 Kb3 63.Ke8 Bg5
64.Be6 Kb4 65.Kd7 c3 66.Bf5 Kxa4 67.Kc6 Kb3 68.Kb5 a4, 0-1.

The final game showing my thought processes at the board is from a different tournament
than the games above, but is very instructive, especially in terms of blundering at the
Ziatdinov - Stripunsky (2629) [B42]
Atlantic Open Washington DC, 2002
 higher levels.
I. e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Be7 7.0-0 d6 8.Qg4 g6

The Queen has three squares h3, g3, e2; White only has to guess through the process of
elimination which square is best. I refused Qg3 due to the ...Ng8-f6-h5 maneuver.

9.Qh3 Nd7 10.Rd1

I did not decide yet about my option with the Knight on b1, and wanted to have Nb1-d2-
f3-g5. Another reason for not playing Nc3 was to allow a future c2-c4.

10.. .Qc7 11.Nc3

I am not sure about this move. I could not use the Knight properly on c3, maybe getting to
c4 or g4 squares would be a more aggressive outpost

II. ..b6 12.Bf1

Waiting for ...Nf6 or ...b5.

12.. .Bb7 13.Rd4

I did not want to give black tempi with Nf6.

13.. .h5 14.a4 g5 15.Rc4 Qd8 16.f4 g4 17.Qd3 Ngf6 18.Qe2

18.Be3 d5 19.exd5 exd5 20.Rd4 Nc5 21.Qf5.

18.. .Rc8 19.Rxc8

Now I do not like this move (I should not develop his queen). 19.Be3 Rxc4 20.Qxc4 g3
21.hxg3 Rg8 22.Bf2 Nxe4 23.Nxe4 d5.

19.. .Qxc8 20.Bd2

20. e5 dxe5 21.fxe5 Nd5 22.Nxd5 Bxd5 23.c4 Bb7 24.a5 Nc5 25.Nd2 Qd8 26.axb6
(26.b4 Qd4+) 26...Qxb6.

20.. .Rg8

I was sure the first 20 moves gave me some edge: he did not castle and I have a strong
center. Nevertheless, I have to be patient. Re1 was a natural waiting move. Black has no
real counter play, but I dreamed about his queenside and wanted to bring the second rook
onto the c-file (via a3). Bel was preparing Rd1 and to stop g3, but it did not work for both
cases.

21. Be1

21.Rd1 Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Qxc2; 21.Re1 h4.

21.. .e5 22.f5?

I did not like this move, but I did not want him to have the e5-square. 22.g3 looks strange
and risky, but I should play it: 22.g3 h4 23.Bg2 exf4 24.gxf4 g3 25.hxg3 hxg3 26.Nd4
(26.Rd1 Nc5) 26...Nc5 27.Nf5.

22.. .g3

I missed this move.

23.Bxg3 Rg4 24.Nd2 Nc5 25.Bf2 Ncxe4 26.Ncxe4 Nxe4 27.Nxe4 Rxe4

#*
1l it
i AiA ■ ■
■ ■ Ala A
al !■ ■
■■ ■■
ala iMJaa
an b c
IJ.&
d e f f l h

My King is under attack, and his King is under threats. Still, his King is in the center and
that means I can attack him from both sides (like Qh5), and it puts more pressure on him.
Finally, Stripunsky became tired from all the calculations and collapsed with a "simple"
blunder. We always have to keep in mind the reasons of blunders from such strong players
as GM Stripunsky.

28. Qd2 Rg4

I was sure he had more important things to do than ...Rg4. He could take the pawn on f5:
28.. .Qxf5 29.Bd3 Qf4 30.Qxf4 Rxf4 31.Bxb6 Rg4 32.g3 Rb4.

29. h3

Maybe this is unnecessary.

29.. .Rg8 30.Bxb6 Qxf5 31.Ra3

The White Rook finds the shortest way to the Black King via a3. Two of my rooks travel
with the same idea; the first rook dies in the line of duty, but the second rook has no
opponent now. This kind of "Tatar" attack, with mobilized battalions without any clear
attacking goals was very characteristic of the successful Mongol-Tatar army 800 years ago!

31.. .Qe4 32.Rc3

I had some doubts about the pawn on a4, but 5 minutes for both sides left no time for fear
or calculation.

32.. .Qxa4

Stripunsky spent 30% of his time for calculation and it cost him a lot.

33. Rc7 Qe4

I felt he now believed he was better (due to the extra pawn) and will refuse to repeat
moves, but it can take extra time from him and this is what occurred.

34. Rc4 Bg5??

I saw this line and knew ...Bg5 is losing when I was thinking about the pawn sac, and
could not believe my eyes when he played it.

35. Qxd6

Stripunsky now saw Kh1, but it is too late; he spent the last minute looking for a miracle,
and ended up with only 20-40 seconds left on his clock to my five minutes.

35.. .Be3+ 36.Kh1 Qf5, 1-0.

Alex made this move, and then stopped the clock. He was very kind after the game
(compared with other GMs around who ridiculed my Rf1-d1-d4-c4-c8 march.) He insisted
his position had been better, and I didn't argue with him; it's painful to lose your last game
in a tournament.

PART NINE
PLAY LIKE GEORGE

By Grandmaster Rashid Ziatdinov, edited by Brad Ashlock

"A chess master should be a combination of a beast of prey and

a monk." -- Alexander Alekhine.
My friend, George Agzamov, proved that he was a great player because he was able to
compete with the all-Russian chess school. The Russian chess school is extremely strong,
partly because the players are so supportive of each other. To belong to this team you need
to spend a couple years in Moscow (being Russian was not important). In 1963, Fischer
refused to play chess due to how much the Russian/Soviet players helped each other as a
team (not because the communist party or KGB ordered them, but from a genuine
camaraderie). Fischer could not understand this teamwork, and knew at the time that he
could not fight against them in candidate tournaments.
Since Agzamov was from the provinces, the Russians automatically assumed that he could
not understand chess; only after 1981 did they begin to respect and fear him. 1983 through
1985 were his best years. Here is a sample of his play from that period:

Tal - Agzamov [D32]

Sochi 1984
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3 Nc6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Be2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bd6 9.0-0
0-0 10.Nf3 a6 11.b3 Re8 12.Bb2 Bc7 13.Qd3 Qd6 14.Rfd1 d4 15.exd4 Bg4 16.g3 Nb4
17.Ba3 Nxd3 18.Bxd6 Bxd6 19.Rxd3 Bb4 20.Bf1 Bf5 21.Nd1 Bxd3 22.Bxd3 Nd5 23.Bc4
Rad8 24.a4 Kf8 25.Kf1 g6 26.a5 Re7 27.h4 h5 28.Kg2 Kg7 29.Kf1 Kf8 30.Kg2 Kg7
31.Kf1 Rc7 32.Kg2 Kf8 33.Kf1 Kg7 34.Kg2 f6 35.Kf1 Re7 36.Kg2 Rc7 37.Kf1 Rcd7
38.Ra4 Be7 39.Ra1 Bb4 40.Ra4 Be7 41.Ra1 Bf8 42.Kg2 Kh7 43.Ra4 Re8 44.Ra1 Bb4
45.Ra4 Be7 46.Ra1 Bb4 47.Ra4 Bf8 48.Ra1 Nb4 49.Nc3 Kg7 50.Ra4 Rdd8 51.Ne2 Nd5
52.Ra1 Kh6 53.Kf1 Rd7 54.Kg2 Be7 55.Kf1 Bd8 56.Ra4 Bc7 57.Ra1 Bb8 58.Nc1 Nc3
59.Nd3 Ba7 60.Rc1 Ne2 61.Re1 Rde7 62.Bd5 Bxd4 63.Bxb7 Bc3 64.Bxa6 Bxe1 65.Nfxe1
Ra8 66.Nc5 Nd4 67.b4 Rxe1+ 68.Kxe1 Nc2+ 69.Kd2 Nxb4 70.Bc4 Rxa5 71.Ne4 Kg7
72.Be2 Nc6 73.Nc3 Nd4 74.Bd1 Re5 75.Kd3 Ne6 76.Bf3 Ra5 77.Bd5 Nf8 78.Bc6 g5
79.hxg5 fxg5 80.Bg2 Ra3 81.Kd2 Ne6 82.Nd5 Nd4 83.Bh3 Nf3+ 84.Kc2 Ra2+ 85.Kd3 g4,
0-1.

Agzamov's style was to win by making no mistakes; he was determined to make no errors.
This puts titanic pressure on opponents. He played similar to how a computer plays now:
no "great plans", but no tactical mistakes. This strategy was successful against many of
Agzamov's powerful opponents.

Tal-Agzamov is one of George's best games. Look how the great Tal missed d4! (but not
George!). White won the Exchange but not the game. The next step was to force Tal to
make another mistake, to make him tired; this sounds dishonorable, but it's not, it's an
honorable stratagem. George repeated the position many times and finally, when the real
battle began, Tal made another mistake (Bd5) induced not from time-trouble, but from
fatigue. Every moment in this game deserves deep consideration. Tal was an extremely
strong player who was beaten not by missing an amazing magical combination (Tal lost
many games that way), but by a very methodical system akin to eastern martial arts, where
patience is more important than anything else, where guerilla ambushes are better than
direct attacks.