The hardest part of chess is winning a won game.

A journalist once described the outcome of a game of one of my friends as “his opponent couldn’t hold in a winning position”. In that case, it wasn’t true since my friend wasn’t lost at any point. Nevertheless, I still love the expression and use it fondly. Indeed, it is a common occurrence among chess players to become salty after a game and start complaining about having a commanding position and squandering the advantage. Whenever you hear "I was totally winning...", you know there is a "...but" coming later on. 

In chess, one shouldn’t be too dogmatic. I had a weakness of relying too much on theoretical assessments. For example, if I realized that my position should be winning, I used to lose interest in the game and hope that it would end soon by itself. Similarly, I didn’t put up the best resistance in the positions which I evaluated as lost for myself. Grandmaster Natalia Pogonina provided me with useful advice in this regard. According to her, you shouldn’t dwell too much on the mathematical assessment of the position. Think about the best move, not the result. Generally, it makes more sense to try to improve the life of your pieces one by one. If you are ahead, it will usually lead to victory. If you are behind, it might give you some counter chances if the opponent’s play is not precise enough.

Chess.com had an interesting survey in 2008 on how people approach a better position. The question was, “When you are playing a game of chess and you have a big lead, does it affect the way you play?”The answers were the following:

I tend to ease up when I have a big lead (17%)

I continue to play hard so I can expand the lead (17%)

I try to simplify the game and avoid all complications (45%)

It depends on how strong my opponent is (22%)

Let's go over the presented options and discuss whether they make sense. 

Easing up obviously can’t be recommended.

To continue playing hard is nice, but not everyone is capable of doing it throughout the entire game. 

Simplifying the game and avoiding all complications sounds like a wise thing to do, but this approach has serious drawbacks. First of all, you start playing defensively and being afraid of ghosts. This is not efficient in terms of converting the advantage. Secondly, if something does go wrong, you will probably start blaming yourself for allowing complications, and this will make the game spiral down even further for you. 

Finally, the strength of the opponent should have nothing to do with how you approach the position. Of course, many of us are tenser when facing formidable partners and somewhat laidback when playing lower-rated opponents, but this is not the right attitude.

Let me offer you a few more tips on how to convert a winning position:

Don't play for style points. This should not be confused with avoiding complications at all costs. If you believe that a certain combination works for you and is the best way to win, trust yourself and go for it. However, some people start showing off for no reason. Instead of winning in a couple of moves, they sacrifice half their chessmen after discovering what they believe is a flashy mate in seven. Then on move five, they realize there was a hole in their analysis...and the game ends indeed, but not the way they expected! I remember one of my coaches telling me: "If you can pick up an extra queen in a couple of moves, and the alternative is to give a brilliant mate in X moves, always take the queen! The opponent will resign immediately anyway".

Magnus Carlsen, on confidence and trusting your instincts

When you fail to convert, analyze what went wrong. There are plenty of reasons why one can fail to convert a winning position, from psychological to purely chess ones. Quite often, the problem is that your tactics and calculation are not on par with your overall level. This can result in missing a decisive combination where it was most needed. Or, for other players, poor endgame technique is the bottleneck. As the old adage goes, a skillful endgame player wins drawish endgames and saves those where the opponent has an extra pawn. 

Don't overestimate yourself. We tend to treat the position according to the chess engine's evaluation. Some of us lament not winning something like +10 position but forget that this number is based on the mind-blowing calculations of a machine rated 3500+. Neither of us is even close to this skill level, so we can't expect to be that flawless in driving the advantage home. This is yet another reminder that you can only relax after the scoresheets have been signed. 

Be prepared to calculate. Experienced opponents will do their best to set up traps, stir complications, try to exploit your time advantage, etc. If you were able to invest enough energy into obtaining a winning position, you should also be prepared to go the extra mile to seal the deal. 

Don't get into time trouble. When you are short of time, blundering is more of the norm than an exception. I realize that it's easier to say "don't get into time trouble" than to do it. Still, if falling behind on the clock is one of your chess sins, it should be addressed separately. 

Always play the current position and forget about the past. This is especially important if you let the advantage slip somewhat or completely. Many of us become frustrated and try to bend the position to our will as if it was still winning. This may cause painful defeats. Be self-aware. If you feel that your blood pressure is rising, it may make sense to get up from the board and take a walk. Possibly even wash your face with cold water. The objective is to calm down and approach the position as if it had just been presented to you by another player. Letting go of the previous successes and failures. 

Avoid daydreaming. A common mistake is to start celebrating too early, imagining how your much higher-rated opponent is going to resign soon; how you will spend your upcoming prize; how nice it will be to get a title norm, etc. This clouds your vision and serves as a major distraction. You lose focus since your brain relaxes as if the matter has already been settled. Also, you become anxious since you feel like you have something to lose: in your fantasies, the prize is already yours, but what if it slips out of your hands? 

Don't be too hard on yourself. There is a thin line between constructive criticism aimed at self-improvement and mercilessly bashing yourself for not being perfect. Some players become extremely bitter after tough, "undeserved" losses. They can't sleep, resort to drinking booze, and, in worst-case scenarios, keep bringing up that unfortunate game in conversations for years and years. This is not the way! 

I wish you the best of luck in converting winning positions! 

The Magnus Chess Academy app offers plenty of opportunities to polish your skills of converting a winning position: practical tips, interactive exercises covering all facets of the game, as well as captivating mini-games. Give it a try today and learn from the 5-time World Chess Champion! 

Getting a winning position is only the beginning. How do you collect your hard-earned point? 

Recently, I was having dinner with my friends. When the conversation switched to chess, they started asking me why there was a need for arbiters in chess. According to them, the rules of the game are fairly simple, while chess players are gentlemen, so you should not expect any mischief.

Well, I am glad that the public has this idealistic notion of chess players as guys wearing suits with flawless manners! However, in reality, anyone who has been in the circuit long enough knows that the atmosphere at chess events is not all roses. 

In the XVI century, Ruy Lopez de Segura suggested in his chess treatise "Libro de la Invencion liberal y Arte del juego del Axedrez" placing the chessboard so that the light shines into the opponent’s eyes and irritates him. This is one of the first examples of psychological warfare advice in chess history. Below we will consider some other well-known methods.

Humming and singing, especially when playing blitz. You will probably not get away with something like this at an official event. However, when I was a kid, there were plenty of amateurs around who would hum or sing during the game, distracting you and never bothering to stop, no matter how loudly you objected. One particularly notorious guy of this sort was some grandpa with a long white beard, a crossover between Gandalf and Dumbledore. His singing was driving me mad! 

Finger drumming. This mostly happens naturally due to nervousness, but can be quite triggering for the opponent. 

Holding on to the chess clock after making a move to make it hard for the opponent to press the button. This tecnique is particularly popular in blitz games in the park where mechanical clocks are used. By not allowing the opponent to press the tumbler right away, you can gain quite a few precious seconds. Obviously, this is foul play that should not be tolerated. As a kid, I remember being the victim of this and not being able to do anything about it since the offenders were adults who were much older and stronger. 

Harassment. Gender, race, age, playing strength and many other factors can become the subject of harassment from the opponents. You should be prepared for anything. 

Asking disrespectful questions before the game: “What color do I have? I didn’t have time to prepare”; “How do I spell your name?”. The idea behind such behavior is to trigger the opponent by showing how little you care about the game and that they are not worthy of knowing. Sometimes, this can be done unintentionally. For example, in Qatar Masters 2014, the reporters noticed that Vladimir Kramnik used to check his opponents' name tags before the round. Anish Giri even humorously showed his name tag to Kramnik preemptively! The self-joke seems to have backfired on Anish, as he was destroyed over the board. Amusingly enough, Yu Yangyi used the same trick on Kramnik himself, glancing at Big Vlad's name tag before the round! As a result, the Chinese Grandmaster won the game and eventually the tournament! 

Kicking your opponent under the table. This infamously happened in a Candidates match in 1974 between Viktor Korchnoi and Tigran Petrosian.

Not offering a handshake before the game (especially in pre-COVID times). One of the most famous examples of this sort is Short-Cheparinov, 2008.  In the World Championship match in 1978, Anatoly Karpov refused to shake Korchnoi's hand before Game 8. The Chief Arbiter informed the head of the Soviet delegation afterwards that they should have informed him in advance about such a decision. Raymond Keene, Korchnoi's second, wittily remarked that Karpov's demarche saved Korchnoi from the necessity to go to the WC after the start of each game to wash his hands.

Staring right at the opponent’s face when it is their move. In many cultures, such staring is considered a sign of hostility. 

Placing pieces sloppily or knocking them down and pressing the clock. 

Standing up and hovering over the board just behind the opponent’s shoulder when it is their move. 



Standing behind the opponent when it is his move is one of the most notorious psychological warfare practices in chess

Smoking over the board. Smoking was banned for the first time at a major chess event, National Open, USA, in 1976. Since 1990, FIDE has officially banned smoking in all events.  



It was impossible to imagine Mikhail Tal  playing a chess game without smoking one cigarette after another

Writing a move down before actually making it in order to check out the opponent’s reaction (currently prohibited). An even more interesting case was top-10 player Wesley So getting defaulted for writing motivational messages to himself on the scoresheet during the US Chess Championship in 2015. Obviously, there was no evil intent behind this, but it could still be irritating for the opponent. 

Showing up for the round drunk and wearing smelly clothes. This is not something you would be able to pull off at a major event. However, in open tournaments, there are quite a few cases when a certain player comes to the round after partying all night and neglecting personal hygiene. This could be extremely unpleasant for some players to face. 

Sporting a killer dress. According to the legendary Nona Gaprindashili, female chess players pay a lot of attention to the looks of the opponent. A fancy new dress or a fabulous ring/brooch can make them lose concentration ("I prefer risk, 1974, p. 154). I have heard the same statement from many other female players. Sometimes the chess duel is decided by who has the better dress/handbag/makeup. 

Loudly munching food at the board. Prohibited by FIDE rules, but happens more often than one might think. 

Arriving late for the game. Pretty much anyone who has played tournaments has been through this. There is always some nervousness associated with whether the opponent is going to come at all. Also, sometimes, especially in short time controls, there is a moral dilemma whether to start the clock or to wait for the opponent to arrive. You should be prepared for this and decide in advance how to act under such circumstances. 


Talking to a friend during a game, making the opponent think that the current position is being discussed (prohibited). One of my worst memories regarding this was playing an open event where my opponent's friend would come up to your board and stare. After making a move, my opponent would leave and, accompanied by his friend, leave the playing hall, not even hiding their conversation. When I called for an arbiter and asked her to do something about this since it was clear that they were cooperating and possibly even checking out the positions on some sort of device, she snapped back at me, pointing out that "They had to leave the are so they could smoke! Smoking is prohibited in the schoolyard". Needless to say, she didn't even bother issuing a warning to that guy. Feeling insulted and shocked, I ended up losing despite having a decent position. 

Inviting hypnotizers, strong seconds, etc. in order to impress and frighten the opponent. Wars between hypnotizers were all the rage during Korchnoi-Karpov-Kasparov times. Nowadays, many chess players have personal sports psychologists, but these shows of bringing them to the round and trying to negatively affect the opponents seem to have become part of the past. 

Dismissing draw offers and not saying a word in return. Playing on in a dead drawn position just to make the opponent more tired and frustrated.

Banging the moves on the board and slamming the door over and over again. For example, Vishy Anand complained that in the World Championship match in New York, 1995, Kasparov was clearly putting psychological pressure on him by slamming the door with a loud bang each time he left the playing hall. According to Vishy, at that time he wasn't prepared for such psychological warfare and didn't know what to do. 

Breaking the “touch-move” rule. This one we have reviewed in a standalone blog post. 

Screwing the pieces into the chessboard when placing them. This is usually done to signal that you are making a powerful move that is supposed to be devastating for the opponent. 

Saying "J'Adoube" repeatedly and adjusting pieces over and over again. This can be highly distracting and irritating. 

Obviously, the list is by far not exhaustive. I recommend following the rules of fair play and avoiding using these techniques. However, it is important to be prepared to face them from time to time and make sure that they don’t affect your peace of mind.

I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves. 

Looking for a way to beat your opponent without wearing stinky socks, spewing insults and knocking pieces over? Check out Magnus Chess Academy, a one-stop chess app developed by a team of world-class experts led by 5-time World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen! 

What kind of dirty tricks should you be prepared for over the chessboard? Let's check out the must-know list!

As a kid, I was a big fan of watching intellectual games on TV and competing in such contests myself. Jeopardy!, Who Wants To Be a Millionaire, What? Where? When?, The Weakest Link, Brain Ring, and so on. I am less fond of them since nowadays when you can search most things online, storing too many relatively useless facts in your head is probably not the way to go. Ironically, this topic reminds me of a conversation between Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Study in Scarlet":

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has difficulty laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" [Dr. Watson] protested.

"What of the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently: "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

Nowadays, the argument made by Holmes is more alive than ever.

Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes as portrayed by Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch. Image from Popsugar.co.uk

Anyway, I still enjoy trivia questions that get your brain working instead of merely recalling the information you already know. You know, the challenges for nerds HRs ask potential employees of top IT and consulting companies. 

What if I asked you to estimate the median lifespan of the classical World Chess Champions who have already passed away? How would you approach this task? Ponder this question for a bit and see if you can reach a conclusion. 

I am by no means an expert in the field of longevity, so the musings presented below should not be treated as the "solution". 

Overall, there were only 16 classical World Chess Champions. A quick count reveals that ten of them passed away, while six are still alive. 

At 63, Vasily Smyslov played a Candidates Match against Garry Kasparov. Smyslov holds the longevity record so far when it comes to World Chess Champions - 89 years. Not in Yuri Averbakh's league, but still quite respectable! 

If you continue relying on knowledge, you can come up with a reasonably accurate estimate if you know the biographies of the champions well. I wouldn't remember the exact age at which most of them died, but I can easily come up with assessments such as "should be 80+ for Botvinnik" , "Smyslov had the longest life of them, almost hitting 90", or "Tal didn't reach 60". In a matter of seconds, I would tell you that the answer is probably between 60 and 70 years.

If you don't know the biographies of the players well enough to juggle lifespan numbers, the challenge becomes much more formidable. What factors do you think are relevant here? Once again, probably neither of us is a longevity expert, so we have to invent them on the go. 

Country of origin. If you have ever looked at the list of countries sorted by life expectancy, you will realize that the place of living has a tremendous effect on life expectancy. The numbers in the table range from 84+ in Japan to 53+ in Central African Republic. The World Champions had diverse backgrounds. Half of them were from the USSR, and the rest were mostly from developed countries. Overall, this is a tough factor to assess unless you have expert knowledge, but my guess would be that the country of origin is more of a plus than a minus in their case. +

Date of birth. This is also a huge factor to consider. Most of the late World Chess Champions died in the XXth century. The only exceptions are Vasily Smyslov and Bobby Fischer. Overall, this factor is more of a minus since life expectancy has been known to increase rapidly over the last century. +

Education. Nowadays, to become a professional chess player, you typically have to give up on your university studies or even ditch high school. However, historically it was not the case. At some point, Mikhail Botvinnik passionately argued that a person without a college degree would never become a World Champion! A few World Chess Champions of the past had Ph.D. degrees, and my guess would be that they were more educated than their average contemporaries. And since the level of education has a positive correlation with life expectancy, this should give the number in question a boost. +

Gender. In some countries, the gap is more pronounced than in others. However, throughout most of the world, females tend to outlive males by a few years. Since all the World Chess Champions were men, this factor works against them. -

Income. Before Bobby Fischer, chess players usually had a day job since playing chess was not a lucrative occupation. However, there are all sorts of privileges that come with being a World Champion. In the USSR, for instance, they received extensive support from the government. Therefore, I would claim that, compared to their average contemporaries, World Chess Champions were better off and hence more likely to live longer. +

Occupation. This one is a tough cookie. Chess is an intellectual activity that is supposed to prolong your lifespan. However, this mainly refers to playing chess as a hobby. Pursuing it competitively is a different matter. Boris Spassky once pointed out that playing a WCC match takes three years off your life expectancy. Of course, this was not a serious claim, but it drives the message home. Professional chess players have to deal with extreme stress, jet lag, and a passive lifestyle, not to mention staying late at night since to be fresh for the round that usually starts at 3-4 p.m., one has to wake up late. I am torn on this one and can't announce it to be a definite plus or minus. ?

Family status. All the late World Champions were married. The record-holder in this respect used to be Mikhail Tal, who was quite a ladies' man and ended up being married thrice. This made him untrustworthy in the eyes of the Soviet authorities and played a key role in limiting his trips abroad. Later, Garry Kasparov matched Tal's record, also marrying three times. Since, on average, married men tend to live longer than single, this is a plus. +

Mikhail Tal generally had fragile health. His bohemian lifestyle didn't quite help with longevity. Petrosian and Tal both died at 55. 

Here is the trickiest part. How do we factor in everything we have just assessed? Based on the country of origin and date of birth, I would guess something like 60 years. Considering gender, education, income, family status, and occupation, I would probably throw in another 10 years or so. Hence my bet would be around 70. 

Are you interested in Magnus Carlsen's take on his greatest predecessors? Check out the Magnus Trainer app. Among other lessons, you will find biographical articles about the best chess players of all time, presenting intriguing facts and the masterpieces they have created over the board. 

Now it's time to see how accurate your (and mine!) estimates were. Here are the nitty-gritty statistics:

Wilhelm Steinitz (Prague, May 17, 1836 – August 12, 1900) – 64

Emanuel Lasker (December 24, 1868 – January 11, 1941) – 72

José Raúl Capablanca (19 November 1888 – 8 March 1942) – 53

Alexander Alekhine (October 31, 1892 – March 24, 1946) – 53

Max Euwe (May 20, 1901 – November 26, 1981) – 80

Mikhail Botvinnik (August 17, 1911 – May 5, 1995) – 83

Vasily Smyslov (24 March 1921 – 27 March 2010) – 89

Mikhail Tal (November 9, 1936 – June 28, 1992) – 55

Tigran Petrosian (June 17, 1929 – August 13, 1984) – 55

Robert James "Bobby" Fischer (March 9, 1943 – January 17, 2008) – 64


Now let's take a look at the numbers: 89, 83, 80, 72, 64, 64, 55, 55, 53, 53.
The median life duration for a World Chess Champion is 64 – the number of chess squares on the board! Coincidence? I don't think so. 

Despite the difference in methodology, approaches #1 and #2 have provided relatively close and reasonably accurate estimates. 

Out of six World Champions who are still alive, two have already passed this threshold. Boris Spassky, the oldest living WC, is 85. Anatoly Karpov is 71. Garry Kasparov is expected to turn 60 next year. Viswanathan Anand, who has just returned to the top-10 in the world, is 52. Vladimir Kramnik, who is competing in the Chess Stars event today, is 47. Magnus Carlsen, playing in the European Chess Club Cup, is 31. 

Let's wish the legendary World Champions to exceed the current median age of 64 by far! Records are meant to be broken. 

If you were asked to guess the average lifespan of a World Chess Champion, what would you say? 

Chess fans all over the world are closely following the Candidates Tournament that is currently underway in Madrid, Spain. Apart from who is going to emerge the winner, the main plot is whether Magnus Carlsen will be defending his chess crown or not. 

That being said, former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, who commentates on the event on the Levitov Chess channel on YouTube, was skeptical of the players’ chances in a WCC match against Magnus. He was shocked by the candidates’ endgame technique, rating it from “average” to “poor”, whereas Carlsen’s skills in that area he regards to be “fantastic”.  

By occasionally keeping an eye on the broadcast, I realized there is nothing new under the sun regarding the kibitzers’ reactions. Many of them tend to overdramatize the outcome of a single game or even its course. For instance, when Fabi and Nepo won in the first round, it produced plenty of speculations about a Carlsen vs. Caruana or a Carlsen vs. Nepomniachtchi rematch, as if that single game was a good predictor of the outcome of the whole tournament. 

Despite having a much longer history, the Candidate tournaments have been played out under the current “double round-robin, 8 players” since 2013. Let’s look at this issue from a historical perspective and see whether the results of the first round robin offer a good chance of predicting who the winner will be in the end. 

Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik drew both of their games at the Candidates in 2013.

What are the most notable takeaways from the table?

·        In all five events, the eventual winner was at least co-leading the tournament after the first half. 

·        There was only one tie for first. In 2013, between two chess titans ­− Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik. 

·        Former world #2 Levon Aronian has a remarkable record of sharing the lead thrice (!) after the first half of the Candidates and not getting a single shot at the ultimate chess title. 

·        To win the Candidates, one is typically expected to score 4.5-5 points in the first seven games. 

·        In four tournaments out of five, the winner scored 8.5/14. Fabiano Caruana is the only exception, earning a remarkable 9 points in 2018. 

Of course, it’s too early to make calls at this stage, but so far, Ian Nepomniachtchi (3.5 points out of 5) and Fabiano Caruana (3 points) have a fair chance to score 4.5-5 points out of seven. Also, there is a slim possibility that someone from the large pack of players at the 50% mark (Jan-Krzysztof Duda, Richard Rapport, Hikaru Nakamura) might pull off an impressive streak of wins and achieve the coveted result. 

Who do you think is the favorite to win the whole thing? And who are you rooting for? 

Whether you are aspiring to become a candidate master or a World Championship candidate, Magnus Trainer is the right fit for you. Brought to you by the World Champion Magnus Carlsen, it is a one-stop solution for anyone who loves chess and wants to become better at it. Use the code “CHESSDADS” for a limited-time Father’s Day special discount, 40% off the regular price! 

Let’s recap the previous Candidates tournaments and see if leading the event after the first half is a solid predictor of overall success!

Who Do You Think Will Win the Candidates Tournament?

Pretty much every person in the world can teach you something. This is especially true of the very best chess players. Still, a common mistake amateurs make is focusing too much on the shortcomings of the elite GMs.

The reasoning goes like this: “They are rated much higher than me, yet they do this. Hence, I can also afford not to work on this problem.” True? Not really.

All of us have individual virtues and shortcomings, as well as personal preferences. One should be careful when imitating the habits of top GMs. For example, if one of them doesn’t work on the opening much, the other – on the middlegame, and the third one dislikes endgames, then you might end up not doing any chess studies at all by combining all the three approaches! 

Nevertheless, I often hear people saying something like: “Magnus Carlsen doesn’t study the opening much, so scrap it” (this is an outdated myth, by the way!); “Hikaru Nakamura trash talks people after losing, so why can’t I do it?”; “Alexander Khalifman used to show up for the round on shaking legs with a hangover, so what is so bad about drinking alcohol during an event?”. The flaw in this logic is that one should focus on the numerous virtues of the top players instead of trying to copy their few weaknesses. For example, a much more feasible attitude would be to say: “I want to be such an amazing practical player as Carlsen, knowing how to set problems for my opponent at every stage of the game”; “I will learn from Nakamura how to excel at speed chess”; “Khalifman is a supreme example of a hard-working, self-made chess player and a top-notch theoretician.”

Most of us are “privileged” since we have so many chess weaknesses that the potential for improvement is enormous. However, even the best players in the world have to reinvent themselves from time to time to remain on top of the circuit. Here are a few examples.

No matter how self-confident and dominant Garry Kasparov was, he didn’t pass up the opportunity to invite players who were of interest to him for a training session. For instance, when Kasparov lost in the 2004 European Club Cup to Sergey Rublevsky, Garry offered him to participate in a training camp together. Apparently, the idea was to see if there was something special about the Russian Grandmaster that Kasparov could add to his arsenal. Needless to be said, this was by far not the only case of this sort.

Garry Kasparov, arguably the greatest chess player of all time, found a worthy successor in Magnus Carlsen. Image from 2009, ChessBase.com. 

It is common knowledge that Magnus Carlsen has at some point cooperated with most of the world’s top players. Since he is the forerunner when it comes to extending the human limits in chess, every little step forward at his level requires a tremendous number of effort. Magnus keeps an eye not only on his direct competitors but also on the promising juniors. This way, he had worked with Wesley So and Anish Giri before they became part of the top-10. Carlsen is also generous in the sense that his training partners have more to learn from him than he can rub off them. Still, he is willing to make this trade as long as he becomes a better player because of it. Another curious point is that in his junior years, Carlsen was more willing to learn from the experience of seasoned pros, such as his former mentor, Garry Kasparov. Nowadays, as Magnus has become a middle-aged man, he seems to be more interested in cooperating with junior players to not miss out on innovative trends. 

Viswanathan Anand and Anish Giri sharing a laugh during the Candidates-2016

In a Chess.com interview in May 2019, Anish Giri said the following about Vishy Anand, who as of this day remains a member of the top-20 at the age of 52:

His main advantage compared to others of his age is that he’s truly young at heart. For example, many people of his age don’t welcome change. They stop downloading the latest software versions of things or don’t update their apps, like young people do. But Vishy is the kind of guy who I am sure updates all the apps on his phone. The fact that he’s accomplished what he has and remained there for so long is because he’s able to reinvent himself, and change the way he works, the way he approaches things, just like a younger person does.

Vishy was quite entertained by this assessment and, when meeting Giri for the next time, showed him his smartphone, proving that he does keep all his apps updated! Another competitive advantage of Anand is that he has always been tech-savvy. The people who have worked with him attest that he is always on the cutting edge when it comes to squeezing the most out of chess databases and engines. This is a stark contrast to some other players of his generation, who like to make excuses about being “veterans” and prefer to work exclusively with real chess boards and books, leaving the computer analysis to their seconds or mainly ignoring it. 

Bottom line: you should pinpoint the very best qualities of the top players and try to replicate them instead of gloating over their imperfections. 

On a more general note, this tip works with respect to celebrities. A common mistake is to focus all the attention on their missteps, copying the worst in them. However, one should keep in mind that most of the world’s most prominent influencers became successful not due to their drinking habits, home violence, or promiscuity, but some serious achievements that require both enormous talent and sustained hard work for years and years. 

Finally, are there any exceptions to the rule formulated above? Well, of course, if you are inventive enough, you can come up with some. There are people, especially perfectionists and players with low self-esteem, who could use a confidence shot from time to time, getting it from looking over the top GMs’ most terrible games and realizing that even the chess stars are only human. Also, if you are specifically preparing against one of those players, it could also make some sense to pay a significant amount of attention to their weaknesses and ways to exploit them. Even then, you will need to form a balanced picture, giving due credit to your opponents’ strengths along with their soft spots. 

Wondering how to invite all these super GMs to your home for a training session? This is no easy task. However, since Magnus Carlsen has kindly done this work for you, there is a shortcut. Download our apps at a discounted price and let the World Champion and his team of world-class experts share some valuable insights with you!

When studying top chess players, be forgiving for weaknesses and focus on their strengths. 

Learning from the Best – Focus on the Virtues

Many of us enjoy reading books or listening to lectures & motivational speeches given by eminent individuals who have attained international recognition in their fields of expertise. This process of fishing for the right "secrets of success" is an inherent part of human nature. Chess players are no exception to this rule.

My soft spot in this regard is not unique: I like to pay special attention to interesting anecdotes and facts from the life of the top chess players and subconsciously make comparisons between myself and them. This might not be a bad idea if you want to become a chess journalist or occasionally win a trivia by answering correctly who came first in Zurich 1953 and other tricky chess questions. However, I have met a few chess experts who played chess very poorly, while many modern GMs sometimes amaze me with their illiteracy in chess history. Playing and studying the games is usually more productive for someone who wants to improve than reading amusing stories about how one master called a fellow guy a moron.  

Notably, GM Simen Agdestein mentions in his book "Wonderboy Magnus Carlsen" that as a kid, Magnus was much more interested in the games of the world champions than in the opportunity to have a conversation with them. Maybe it was due to his age at that time and to his introverted personality, yet it is still another sign that paying more attention to the players' games is a good idea if you are concerned about improving your chess.  

Moreover, one must keep in mind that all of us are unique. The circumstances are different, and it takes quite some effort to determine which rules of thumb from the past to follow and which to disregard. For instance, let's consider Ian Nepomniachtchi's recent interview and see what he has to say about losing the World Chess Championship match to Magnus Carlsen in a rather dramatic fashion (7.5-3.5). 

Mike: Yeah, we've already asked about that at the post-game press conference, the actual chess. Getting back to your team, you obviously had [GM] Sergey Karjakin on your team; please correct me if I'm wrong if you had [GM] Peter Leko on your team, but both of those players have played for world championships, and I'm sure they tried to describe to you what it was going to be like to be in the tank. Not chess moves, but just that experience. Was there preparation for what it was like to play in the tank? Was it what you expected, or was it somehow different?

Ian: Well, I would say that Sergey joined somewhat last minute, so basically for the last month and it was mainly about some training, which probably, as it seems right now, were too intense and maybe not too well-timed because normally you'd probably have some break so you can play some blitz or bullet online. But if you try to play some serious or semi-serious games, not like blitz, just for training purposes, there's also a limit. You shouldn't be swallowed into this whole topic.

Indeed, it was quite instructive to speak with Peter and speak with Sergey about their world championship match experiences, but I understood after the match had started, that every match is unique. You can even imagine yourself in someone's shoes but at the same time the opponent can be different, and even if it's the same person, that person can play completely different chess with a completely different attitude.

Some general advice is not to pay too much attention to what people say, don't get too busy with some social media, and so on, but these are just general words. I asked a few questions, I asked [GM] Vladimir Kramnik [for] his thoughts. Sadly, we couldn't work together this time, but maybe sometime in the future. Of course, a lot of guys gave me a lot of advice, some of them had world championship match experience, some of them not. Perhaps today I would say that maybe it was a little bit too much, you know, trying to do your thing correctly according to all of this information you get because once again, every tournament is more or less unique and especially every match is unique and you have to prepare for your own situation. It was a bit of an unfortunate decision to try to build your preparation onto the experience of other people...

As you can see, Ian did his homework by talking to some people who have had experience playing World Chess Championship matches, hoping to discover some secrets that would help him perform better against Carlsen. However, according to Nepo, the decision to follow into the footsteps of others was not particularly beneficial for him. The "every match is unique" reminds me of a recent monologue by Vladimir Kramnik that he gave on the Levitov Chess YouTube channel. He lamented that, despite being experienced already, everything that could go wrong went wrong for him during the match against Anand in 2008, while in his very first match against Garry Kasparov in 2000 everything proceeded smoothly. In other words, if our own experience sometimes doesn't prove to be useful, then how can we expect someone else's experience to carry us through?

The one and only official chess game between Magnus Carlsen and Sergey Shipov took place in 2006. 

For objectivity's sake, I don't want to create an impression that you should totally disregard the collective chess wisdom. For comparison, here is what GM Sergey Shipov, a well-known chess commentator and ex-coach of Ian Nepomniachtchi & Carlsen's second Daniil Dubov, posted in the Crestbook VK group:

Yesterday during the press conference, Ian pointed out that he might have over-trained before the match when commenting on the possible reasons for his loss.

Well, it happens. Grandpa [Mikhail] Botvinnik was not wrong on everything 😊

For instance, he recommended not to touch the chessboard for two weeks before an important tournament to which you are preparing in advance. Sleep, food, walks, physical workouts, and as little chess as possible! As a result, you preserve your passion for chess and are able to play with pleasure and at full force. Also, this way, it is easier to maintain focus and not blunder like Ian did. 

I believe that in our days the two weeks distance is excessive. One may as well shorten the chess "quarantine" to one week. And to throw some simple chess tactics into the mix – both for entertainment and for feeling better. 

Magnus seems to follow this routine, adding light-spirited blitz matches against relatively weak opponents to it. Sometimes he whitewashes an opponent and sleeps well afterward! 😉 Well, for all the future rivals of the World Chess Champion, the failure of the Challenger is going to become an instructive case study. Maybe for Ian himself as well…

Here we can see Shipov fall back on a classical tip dating back to the days of the hegemony of Soviet chess and adapt it slightly to meet the challenges of the modern age.  

Frankly speaking, I was shocked when I heard how many training games Nepo and Karjakin have played right before the match. Even before I discovered that, I looked at Nepo during the opening ceremony and told my friends that he conveys an impression of an exhausted person who has already played a match or two. My prediction was that his relatively poor physical form would haunt him in the second half of the match, as it often happens to Nepo, and will result in a loss in 14 games or sooner. 

It turns out I was spot on; Nepo did conduct two rigorous sparring matches against Karjakin and eventually lost the match against Carlsen. Admittedly, having said what I said earlier, I didn't expect it to go THAT badly for him! As an outsider, one can only wonder why a Challenger would commit 
 "every Russian schoolboy knows" mistakes and later comment on them as if he has learned something new for himself. Still, it is probably not that straightforward if Ian and his experienced team of GM coaches chose the path that they did.

Summarizing, for mere mortals resorting to analogies and walking in the footsteps of others is a useful strategy. Still, it must be applied with caution and tweaked depending on the circumstances. When talking about breakthrough moments, you often have to be an innovator to excel; simply following well-known recipes won't cut it. I guess this is one of the explanations why Ian failed: he tried to take on the role of a trendsetter but collapsed under the superhuman pressure of the match in general and Magnus "the alien" Carlsen in particular. 

Wondering how tough it was for Nepo to face Magnus over the board? Download Play Magnus and get a feel of how unforgiving the reigning World Chess Champion is!

Is reading the biographies of top chess players a must-do for a chess improver or an entertaining way to waste your time?

Is Reading the Biographies of Top Players a Waste of Time?

In a nutshell, chess is about making good moves. However, when it comes to finding them, it is easier said than done. Unsurprisingly, many chess players don’t reflect on why they have missed out on a certain promising opportunity and blame it on “bad luck.” 

In this blog post, we will analyze a few popular reasons why people oversee great chess moves that could have potentially changed the course of the game. Also, importantly, we will discuss what to do to minimize the chances of this happening to you. 

Generally speaking, we tend to miss good moves that seem unconventional to us. For example, if a novice has just been taught the value of each chess piece, he is unlikely even to consider a move that gives up a queen for a knight. A more experienced player may realize that this move is in fact a winning sacrifice that leads to mate. 

“Positional” players should solve more studies and tactical problems, analyze the games of the best attacking players, and pay more attention to the forcing moves in each position instead of positional factors. Also, having a more versatile style helps a lot, even though becoming a more universal player typically requires much work. GM Nigel Short used to say that pawn weaknesses don’t matter much if the game ends in a checkmate. However, I still know quite a few strategy-oriented players who won’t even consider making an “ugly” yet efficient move if it doesn’t look right from the positional point of view. Knowing the rules of thumb is very important, but a master should be able to work out the exceptions too.

Wrong evaluation of the position and/or failing to reevaluate it correctly 

In the Carlsen-Anand World Chess Championship match in 2014, Game 6 was quite critical. In the diagram position, Magnus has just played 26.Kd2??, to which Vishy quickly replied 26…a4?? instead of the pretty obvious move 26…Nxe5, collecting the e-pawn for free and putting further pressure on the c-pawn. Anand lost that game and later the entire match, while the intermediate capture 26…Nxe5 would have given him excellent winning chances in at least that particular encounter and could have been a strong psychological blow as well. 

Please check out the Magnus Trainer app if you are interested in a recap of Magnus Carlsen’s World Chess Championship matches, including an analysis of the endgame mentioned above. 

Many amateur kibitzers enjoy making fun of the world’s greats and nurturing their self-esteem by saying that they would have found the right move in a second if they had such an opportunity. By saying so, they ignore the over-the-board psychology. At that point, the position was relatively quiet. Magnus had an edge and felt like he could play for two results: a win or a draw. Vishy was psychologically in the mindset of trying to hold and prevent the active play of his opponent. After a natural move such as Kd2, it is quite natural for Black to keep believing that you are worse and not even try to readjust and search for a way to win. This is a very important phenomenon in general. Many games are lost due to misjudging the position. For example, let’s say you are considerably better (or at least you believe so). Then you make a few moves that you like while the opponent replies somewhat awkwardly. Such a development of events might make you lead you into thinking that you must be winning (“I had a good position and was doing sensible things, while he came up with some rubbish moves”). However, often your initial assessment might turn out to be wrong, or you might have made some poor moves and not noticed it, thus ending in an equal or worse position. The stronger the player is, the better he can evaluate each position and quickly readjust if he feels like the last move has changed the assessment. 

Needless to say, both Magnus and Vishy would have found 26..Ne5 in the blink of an eye if you had shown them a diagram with the position and asked to propose the best move for Black. However, in the psychological context of the over-the-board play they have both missed it.

Chess illiteracy and being a slave of chess stereotypes

Masters know many standard positions and typical plans and reactions. This is usually acquired by going over other players’ games and through personal experience, as well as profoundly analyzing the positions of interest. A newbie will often spend a lot of time on a move and still fail to find the right idea just due to not having seen such a situation before. As compared to pros, amateurs spend tremendous amounts of time and mental energy on reinventing the wheel, not to mention that sometimes they fail to make such an important discovery. 

The other side of the coin is religiously following the plans you have seen earlier; adhering to stereotypes about certain positions prevalent among players of your skill level. For example, if you ask one of the chess students why he believes that f5 should be played for Black in a position, he might reply that it is a standard breakthrough in such structures aimed at starting an attack on the kingside. However, it may well turn out that either the break is inappropriate in this specific case, or there is a much better “non-standard” move. Once again, please don’t fall under the illusion that chess is just a set of guidelines that can be followed automatically to reach success. The game is more sophisticated than that.

These three reasons are quite popular and make up for a large percentage of all the mistakes associated with not finding the optimal move. However, there are many more of them to come. Stay tuned for the next blog post in our series! 

Let’s explore some of the most popular reasons why people choose bad moves in chess over good ones!

A shell-shocked Garry Kasparov walking away from the board after losing on time to MVL. Image by Lennart Ootes, Grand Chess Tour.

Today’s blog post was inspired by Garry Kasparov’s recent abysmal performance in the Grand Chess Tour in Zagreb. The legendary 13th World Chess Champion scored 2.5 points out of 18 and finished in clear last place in the blitz event. One of the factors that caused such a disastrous result was poor time management and the inability to play well in time trouble. Notably, in a game against MVL, Kasparov lost on time in an innocuous equal rook endgame where he was at no risk whatsoever on the board.

Kasparov (White) froze in this position and failed to make a move, allowing his time to run out.

Obviously, the recommendations presented below are not aimed at Kasparov since when it comes to chess, Garry can teach pretty much anyone about any facet of the game. Still, I believe that some of the lifehacks presented below will be of use to less experienced players than Kasparov.

Also, it’s easy to offer banal advice like “do not ever get into time trouble”, but it’s challenging to follow it. Here are a few basic tips on what to do if you are in time trouble already:

• Keep your head cool and try to breathe normally. Amateurs start jumping up and down on the chair, hastily scribbling the moves on the score sheet, pulling their hair, knocking on the chess clock, and dropping pieces by trying to place them down with a shaking hand. Seasoned GMs remain solemn and make moves in a reserved and elegant way. They patiently write down the moves as if they had all the time in the world at their disposal. This behavior helps one to remain concentrated and prevents your heart from starting to beat like a drum and affecting your play.

• Avoid glancing at the clock over and over again. When you are in time trouble, every second is precious. You don’t want to waste time and pump up your heart rate by watching the clock tick away. It is easier said than done since you both need great self-control and an inner sense of time that will prevent you from flagging. The latter comes with experience and a lot of regular practice. Rusty players lose this sense and forfeit on time more often than you would normally expect from them.

• Focus on the game. Don’t start blaming yourself for getting in time trouble. Don’t fear that you will blunder something. Just concentrate and make the most of your current position.

Here are a few more intermediate-level tips that are must-know for tournament players:

• If you are on the defensive and hoping to take advantage of the 50-move rule, mark the last capture or pawn move on your scoresheet so that you don’t have trouble later on pondering whether you have earned the right to claim a draw or not. This habit helps one stay calm and collected when fighting for survival.

• If a conflict situation between you and your opponent occurs, stop the clock and call the arbiter. Sometimes people engage in a verbal discussion while their clock is still running. When they forfeit on time because of it, it is much harder for them to negotiate a favorable decision for themselves once the arbiter finally shows up.

• Try to make it to a time control if there is one. Sometimes move repetitions or exchanges can help you a lot. Of course, there’s a risk of trading the wrong pieces, but there’s also a saying: “Exchange more pieces so that you can’t blunder them in time trouble.” It has some truth to it. Generally speaking, even if you are a tactical genius, it is usually a good idea to simplify the position when you are in time trouble. When you are very short on the clock, it is next to impossible to find all the tricky lines that chess engines point out in the blink of an eye. Who cares that you have a winning position when you will either flag or blunder something away in the end?

Finally, here are a few advanced tips that are worth adding to your chess arsenal:

• If you desperately need to go to the WC and can’t leave it due to the prospects of losing on time, you can “pull a Leko”. There was a story involving him where he reportedly called for an arbiter, claimed a three-fold repetition, and rushed to the bathroom while the arbiter was diligently checking the score sheet! There was no repetition, but Peter did save enough time this way. Super GMs are resourceful!

• Back in the day, when people used to play with mechanical clocks, there was a dirty trick of not paying attention to the fact that your time ran out and playing on as normal, hoping that your partner won’t notice it in the heat of battle. Then, when the opponent flags as well, one could always point it out, if necessary, and claim a draw since it is impossible to prove who flagged first. Nowadays, however, digital clocks usually display a symbol showing who lost on time, so such tricks are no longer possible.

Garry Kasparov showing that even in 2021, you can still play on after you have run out of time!

• Get into the habit of making as many “short” moves as possible. This is especially relevant for drawish endgames. Let’s say the position is more or less equal, and the opponent is trying to test you by playing on and hoping that he will be able to capitalize on your time deficit. Then, for example, if you have a choice between shuffling your king back and forth and moving your bishop from g1 to a7, you should prioritize moving the king since it saves you a lot of time. I have seen quite a few players lose the game due to making fancy “long” moves over and over again, carefully choosing where to place the bishop, queen, or rook. Famous Russian blitz master Genrikh Chepukaitis took this idea one step further and suggested that in blitz, one should play “closer to the clock”, i.e., try to place pieces in proximity to the chess clock and to move them whenever possible, thus saving precious seconds. This was especially important in his golden days since back then, there was no increment, and the art of flagging the opponent was highly valued among fans of blitz.

• Apply Sun Tzu’s military advice to playing in time trouble: “Appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak.” This requires great self-control and good acting skills. Some chess players can send fake tells, bluffing the opponent into believing that they are not happy with their position and have just blundered something. Then when the unsuspecting victim goes for the allegedly winning line, it turns out that the hunter has just become the hunted! Or, conversely, if you blundered something terrible indeed, you should never show it and keep playing normally.

In the video above, Vishy Anand finds himself in an extreme situation, having just one second on the clock, and gives a phenomenal masterclass on handling time trouble. As you watch the video, analyze his actions, and try to recognize some of the principles mentioned above. Maybe you will even find something he could have done better!

If sweating it out and watching your hair turn grey from stress caused by playing in time trouble too often is not your cup of tea, you can always download Play Magnus and face Magnus Carlsen, Judit Polgar, Wesley So and other world-class Grandmasters in a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere. Feel free to take all the time in the world to beat them - but it will still be a formidable challenge!

Playing in time trouble is tough! What are the dos and don’ts when you are low on time? 

How to Play Chess When You Are in Time Trouble

How Do You Convert a Winning Position?

Psychological Warfare in Chess

How Long Do World Chess Champions Live?

Who Do You Think Will Win the Candidates Tournament?

Learning from the Best – Focus on the Virtues

Is Reading the Biographies of Top Players a Waste of Time?

Why Do We Miss Good Moves? – Part I

How to Play Chess When You Are in Time Trouble