Bringing my C to a B

My last post heaped praise on Lakdawala’s “Play the London System.” In fact, it went so far as to credit the book (and the system) for my rise from a C to a B player. That was all true. But... it was not the whole truth. In this post I’ll add some important details. Fill in the gaps. Tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me Great Butternut Squash!

To do this I’ll end up giving reviews of several more books. Some of these reviews will be more thorough than others. None of these will be as thorough as Lakdawala’s review. Sorry. That’s just how things are.

I’ll begin with a trip down memory lane. Every story has a back-story. (Not every story needs to be fully explicated... a lesson George Lucas’s last three Star Wars films sadly showed.) But this case is different. For this story I believe the back-story sets the stage and let’s us know everything we need to know about our protagonist and his plight.

In June of 2010 I returned to tournament chess after a three-year hiatus. When I began graduate school I boxed up and hid all of my chess books and stopped chess cold. I knew I could not (at the beginning at least) balance chess and school. I am too obsessive, too compulsive. So, thinking of my future (financially), I said good-bye to chess (temporarily). I allowed all of my obsessive-compulsive energies to be directed into my studies! When summer 2010 rolled around I only had thesis left to complete for my degree. I knew that then I could again begin (return to) chess. BUT (there’s always a BUT – not really a dirty word... is it?)... I wanted to come back differently.

There are two main ways one can play chess differently. One can play tactically vs. positionally. Or one can change one’s opening repertoire. (The two may often overlap.) I decided to change my opening repertoire.

So, what was my old opening rep.? As white I played 1.e4. I played main lines. No dodges! You play the Najdorf; I hit you with the English Attack! No “Anti-Sicilians” for me; no siree. You play the French; meet my Winawer! No compromises! I booked up on theory. As black, against 1.e4, I met you with 1...e5 aiming for a Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, but I had no problem fighting my opponent in his or her Scotch, Vienna, Italian, etc. Again, all main lines! As for meeting 1.d4, I sprung out the King’s Indian. Let the attack begin!

I did pretty okay with this repertoire. With this repertoire and Cyrus’s coaching (I highly recommend him BTW), I went from low 1200 to low 1500 in two years. (300 points) Pretty darned good! However, even with these past promising results, I still wanted a change.

I’ll start with my changes as black since these came easiest. Against 1.d4 I decided to adopt the Semi-Slav. I have always been fascinated with the Botvinnik variation of this line, so I decided to take it up. Based on my choice for a defense against 1.d4, I decided that I would bring the Caro-Kann into my repertoire. I had actually played this a few times in the past and had never lost a game with it. I have a 1900 friend who to his great chagrin has never beaten me in a tournament game, and I always brought this out against him. It was kind of a joke, but now I would bring it in for real. I liked the idea that the black pawn structures for both the Semi-Slav and the Caro-Kann are rather similar. Those of you who know the Botvinnik variation are probably screaming “No they are not!” and you are right. So, I decided to avoid that variation – heck, the real game doesn’t even begin until well after move 20 or later. With this in mind I went with the more sane “Moscow Variation” in the Semi-Slav. Now that I had my defenses in mind I had to learn them. Now that I had to learn them I had to read some books. Now that I have read those books I can give a few more “mini” reviews.

I’ll start with the Semi-Slav books. The first book I went to was Glenn Flear’s “Starting Out: Slav and Semi-Slav.” It was, like most of the “Starting Out” books published by Everyman, a real nice get your feet wet kind of book. I absolutely love Flear’s “The Ruy Lopez Main Line,” and that book was the backbone of my 1.e4 repertoire (even though few opponents ever had the guts to actually play a main line against me), so I had to read his Slav book. This book – the Slav book – however, like most of the “Starting Out” books, really is best for just getting a feel of the opening. It did do one very nice thing for me though. I had been (in my inner self) vacillating between the Slav (proper) and the Semi-Slav. After reading the book and playing through the games it did help me reach the conclusion that at that time the Semi-Slav was the Slav for me. And that is very, VERY useful to know! So, the verdict on Flear’s book is, if you are going to play the Slav or Semi-Slav, and have no prior knowledge then START THERE! Now that I had fully chosen the Semi-Slav, I needed another – deeper – book.

It was tough making the decision on which Semi-Slav book to spend my precious time with. There are four out there (that I know of) that should be top quality: one by Matthew Sadler and one by David Vigorito. Steffen Pederson also has a two volume set with “The Botvinnik Semi-Slav” and “The Meran System.” Using a process of weeding out, I first knew that I wanted just one book. Based on this, Pederson was out. Then it came down to Sadler vs. Vigorito. I am always a fan of Sadler and how he thinks and writes. I love his Q & A method and I liked that his book had over 125 main games. BUT (the dirty, dirty word “but”) his book was from 1998 and reprinted in 2003, while Vigorito’s book was fresh from 2008. That little five to ten year gap sold me on investing in Vigorito’s book.

Vigorito’s “Play the Semi-Slav” is from Quality Chess (which is kind of funny because Jacob Aagaard is one of the editors, and I usually love to pick on him as a writer, but he appears to be one heck of an amazing editor – good editor ≠ good writer, and bad writer ≠ bad editor (apparently)). First off, Vigorito does not have the same Q & A format I love so much from Sadler. [Insert frowny face here.] Secondly, Vigorito only has 50 main games as opposed to Sadler’s more than 125. [Another frowny face.] And now the “sunshine!” Vigorito’s book, like most of Sadler’s, is very aware of “move order” issues. He walks you through each line and is always ready to point out where move order matters and where lines can cross. Also, his book, unlike Sadler’s, is a repertoire book. It follows the lines after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6. He walks you everything including the “exchange Slav.” Sadler’s book must have the first five moves meet book. Vigorito’s book gets you playing from white’s 3^rd move! “Two paltry moves,” you say?!, I say, “That means the world!” His analysis is clear and he uses lots of verbal explication to walk you through the IDEAS of the variations (rather than way too many innocuous lines). I think this book is a must have for any player taking up the Semi-Slav. (The inclusion of Sadler’s or Pederson’s books is just an added bonus.) [Funny side note: not once in 9 months did I get a real semi-slav (kinda like the ruy lopez main line), but I was always ready!)

Now, let’s talk about Caro-Kann books. For my employment of the Caro-Kann against my 1900 friend who never beat me (one draw, four wins (HA! Rob)) I used Gallagher’s “Starting Out: the Caro-Kann” from Everyman. I cannot say enough how much these books in this series are GREAT for just Starting Out (like the title says!). However, to build a repertoire around the opening I knew I needed more. There are TONS of books out there on the Caro-Kann. I needed to narrow my field. First, I wanted a complete repertoire against 1.e4. From this it looks like I have two choices: Eric Schiller’s “Complete Defense to King Pawn Openings” and Lars Schandorff’s “Grandmaster Repertoire: The Caro-Kann.” The titles alone might say which one I went with, but let me explain my motivations. At club level, the variation you should most expect to meet is the “advance variation.” Schiller’s is a 1998, 2003 book and Schandorff’s is a 2010 book. However, even with age vs. newness, I want the best lines! Schiller has always been “suspect” (at best) in his analysis and recommendations, and here he proves it again. He recommends either the Kavelek Variation or the Botvinnik-Carls Gambit against the advance variation. No siree! I want real solidity! I chose Schandorff’s book! So, how’d this book work out for me? Pretty damned nice! I suffered two losses in the Caro-Kann. Both my fault! The first loss was a real lame one. My opponent played 6. Nge2 and immediately my “spider senses” went into overtime! I knew – I damned well knew – that this move had been refuted just prior to and was addressed in the book for Tal-Botvinnik 1960! {Side Note: The Tal-Botvinnik 1960 book by Tal is one of the BEST chess books of ALL TIME. It belongs on all chess book selves!} What I absolutely could not remember was the actual refutation! Damn! And I paid the price! I went straight home from the humiliating loss and found the “proper” line that saves black and punishes white! NEXT TIME MY FRIEND, next time! Forgetting theory is NOT a (the) books fault; it is yours. The other loss I suffered was in a main line Caro-Kann where after we each banged out the first 11 moves of theory in less than two minutes, I questioned the theory. Rather than bring my dark square bishop to e7 (it almost always goes there) I decided to bring it to d6 – I was afraid of Ne5 (the knight almost always goes there) – deal with it. My position slowly began to crumble due to my in accuracy. What is worse is that I had a draw and still missed it at the end of the middle game. But that is no fault of the Schandorff book. It is my fault for not following it! If you want to take up the Caro-Kann to FIGHT against 1.e4 I highly recommend Schandorff’s book! It is amazing! While it “creeps in” with only about 24 FULL illustrated games, it still packs a punch!

Now we reach my 1.e4 to 1.d4 switch. Yes, at first I was a klutz! I scored wins because patzers played things like an early Bf5 in the Slav which were incorrect! These wins were not due to any book knowledge or me; they were due to blatant errors by my opponents. And then I met “The London System!” [See my last post for more on this.]

I am a big believer in openings. BUT Damn that word), I will be the first to admit that openings will only get you so far. So, what else contributed to my escalation from C to B player? I said I wanted to “change” things, and I did! I had (read previous post) previously studied under Cyrus Lakdawala. He is a rock solid IM who has plenty to offer the straggling 1500 player! Hell, he can offer a lot to a 2200 player, I bet! But I wanted “different.” So I decided to study under Mario Amodeo. He is a candidate master who teaches in the San Diego area as well. I thought, what the heck, I’ll give him a try. Cyrus is big on openings and computer analysis! My kinda guy!!!! However, in my “new” vein of “different” I wanted to do away with computers and too much opening analysis. How was Mario? Mario cared about openings; all chess coaches do. But (ß a good but) he was open to my “lack” of care about the openings. He wanted me to focus on tactics, tactics, tactics! This was kind of amusing (at first) since the three openings heading my rep. (the London, the Semi-Slav (Moscow), and the Caro) are all rather “free” of tactics, but it did “pay-off!” My opening choices were defensive in nature and relatively tactic free, but I did have to watch out for (and wait for) tactics (to arrive). He really set me up for success! With Mario’s tactics focus I needed a book. Yep, another book. I decided on Dan Heisman’s “Back to Basics: Tactics.” The book is geared for (as said by the author) the under 1500 player, but I figured as an under 1600 player I better darned well know this book! And it worked! No matter your rating, you should be able to handle this book! Is it simple? Yes. Does it pay off? Yes. Know it! I recommend it for anyone under 1800; you better now your stuff! (Yes, that was another “mini” book review slipped in.) Another FUN thing Mario had me do was study the Nimzo-Indian, even though I was playing the Semi-Slav. His idea is that it helps “chess understanding” in general. I believe he is right. Mario’s tutelage absolutely helped me to the next level! (This is NOT to say that Lakdawala’s wouldn’t have. The point was I wanted “different.” Either coach will help you progress, they just go about things differently!)

So, what helped me cross the C to B barrier? Was it a change of repertoire? Was it a focus on tactics (in non-tactical openings?)? Was it a change of coaches? Was it the three-year break? Who is to say? What I do know is that I broke the barrier and all of these things were involved. I can now defend (like the Caro-Kann) an attack and wait for my chances. When tactics do arise I am more aware! And (despite the lack of discussion about it on here (so far)) I am one heck of a good end game player – just look at my high percentage of draws to see that. [Ask Joel Batchelor who made me prove from move 30-ish until move 83 that I can hold a draw! – if I have to.]

I’m coming for you A players! You are my new target! And, of course, I will not stop at you; Experts and Masters beware! I may change my openings. I may change my coaches, but I’ll never change my attitude. I am gonna rise up the ladder!