Kaizen opening - illustration

In my first post on this blog, I suggested ways to work on openings for non-master players. This morning I lost a game, and in the analysis, I realized it was quite one good to highlight a few of the main concepts I proposed, namely:

1. how studying openings can help you understand strategies
2. how studying main-lines is almost useless for us non-masters
3. how analyzing every game with a "kaizen" mindset can help you improve
4. how to use the excellent chess.com analyzing tool, and go beyond.

I don't think it matters if you play the same opening as me. Ideally, this piece can help you understand how to analyze one of your games on chess.com and how to learn from it when you are not a master.

As always, keep in mind that I am not a master, just a player with an ok elo on chess.com who loves to improve and still remember what playing with a 1200 elo is. So take my advice with a grain of salt.

Here are the first few moves:

As you can see on move 4, we were out of main theory. At least, out of the theory taught in books and online courses.

Note that my opponent is 2163, an elo I never reached. For me right now, that is a good player. At the very least one who is better than me. He is living proof that you can get this elo without focusing on playing the "best opening variation" all the time.

Another important thing to observe is that while it's not a super-gm move, it's still a principle move. And, as we will see below, one that makes sense is not that easy to "punish".

Punishing deviations!

Once you realized that your opponents deviate from "theory," what you should do is try to realize why no top masters play his move:

1. Is it a tactical mistake?
2. Does it allow a move or a move order that is bad for his position strategically?
3. Does it create long-term weaknesses?
4. Does it allow you to converge to a "better" version of a known position?
5. Or is the move not bad, just not great? In other words, it's a move that does not create any weakness but does not create strength either?

In this case, since there is no super-gm game to learn from, answering these questions is not easy. Obviously, you have to take back the pawn and go to this very dry position:

Staring at this, no clear advantage for black stands out. We have one more centered pawn, but that's not enough to claim a significantly better pawn structure. We are not too much behind on development. There is no clear path to an attack or strategy for any color. On top of it, the computer analysis gives this position a very drawish 0.0.

All this leads me to conclude that the move is just not great, but not bad. It doesn't put any pressure on black, and it will most likely lead to a draw for two super-gms. Which explains why Magnus Carlsen and his peers never played it. This becomes intuitively clear if you compare the position after the top engine suggestion for move 4.

But for my purposes, it means I can save some memory and not think about it. There is nothing for me to remember about this deviation. If I ever encounter this move again, I can play good chess, following simple sound opening principles.

Don't just run memorize every single "best move"

Here is how the middle game went:

Note how the computer keeps suggesting a3 or b4 when I do my knight maneuver. This is the key takeaway from this game, and I will expand on this below.

But for general analysis purposes, I can highlight here something much more important.

The computer suggests a "best move," but he is not unhappy with my move either; no blunder, not even an inaccuracy. Yet... The reason he highlights this move is important, as it shows a strategic theme that a human can use to beat another human.

This is how you can learn much from chess.com awesome analysis tool (not paid to say this I hasten to add).

When the game falls apart, and why I could learn from it.

See below the rest of the game,

There were a few mistakes by both players, but I will not focus on those. The main point of this defeat is that I had no long-term plan other than to defend and see if I could survive.

The takeaways

Thinking about those repeated suggestions of pawn move on the queenside it all becomes clear. I put below a few variations where I push an early b4 and look at a few engine suggestions after that.

Compare these positions to the one I got. :

1. Here I have counter-play on the queenside.
2. I have space, move to maneuver, get the rooks on those open files, push my pawns, etc.
3. There is no clear path to victory, but there is something to do while my opponent prepares his attack.

I will keep that in my "opening strategic database." In those positions, I need to create a threat on the queenside instead of focusing on getting my knight to this outpost. It's obvious now that I stare at it, but I couldn't see it at the time.

I think beginners could get a few key takeaways from this analysis.
Whether you play the Caro-Kann or not is irrelevant, the main point of this article is how to analyze a game and learn from it. You can (and should) check your tactical mistakes, but apart from hitting you on the head for missing those tactics, there is not much you can do. But if you calmly go over why you lost on a more positional and strategic level, you can learn a lot.
Don't forget to:

1. See when someone deviates from theory and check if you can punish them for it. Perhaps you can't, and that is also useful to learn. It will gain you time on the board next time.
2. When the computer highlights the same "best move" many times, stop and see if you can understand a strategic reason behind the suggestion.
3. Don't get hung up on every little "best move suggestion." Sometimes there is something to learn from it, sometimes not.
4. Distinguish learning lines from learning patterns and strategic themes.
5. Keep in mind that finding a strategic theme on your own is 200 times better than having it taught to you by a master because you will never forget it.

That's it for today!
Until next time, happy learning!