Why I Struggle To Write Articles

𝗪𝐡𝐲 𝐈 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐓𝐨 𝗪𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬⁣⁣
⁣⁣
Now that I have your attention, I'm going to stop making excuses and instead actually write an article.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
Namely, on how the key to jumping 200 rating points is to 𝐒𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐘 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
That's right - you don't need that 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘧𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦, or the next guy professing their '𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘴' that, in fact, every Russian schoolboy learned before they were 10 years old. ⁣⁣

Here's a specific example, just for Chess.com:

Fischer understood that you need to get your king BEHIND the passed pawn - i.e. to have ...Kc4 ready in response to Kc6, to attack the passed pawn (and thereby stop White's winning plan of offering a well-timed exchange of bishops to force Black's bishop to a diagonal with fewer squares). 

But how often are you going to actually use this in your games? Maybe once in your life? 
⁣⁣
Here's the big shift that got me from 1800 to 2000: 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐂𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐄 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
Most of you guys have no structure at all to your calculation; that's why you sit at the board going:⁣⁣
⁣⁣
'𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯!'⁣⁣
'𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨!'⁣⁣
'𝘐 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴!' ⁣⁣
⁣⁣

Including, 'classic' position like this one:

Did I let my lack of ability stop me?⁣⁣
⁣⁣
Did I let staying stuck at 1800 for 2 years (while everyone else was overtaking me) discourage me and cause me to give up chess? ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
It shouldn't for you either.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭. ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
So let me give you a simple 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 that I used to jump from 1900 to 2100 in one rating period. ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
Framework 1: The Worst Case ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
You have no idea how much time I used to waste on 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 in my calculation. ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
I would analyze some 'interesting' line ten moves deep, only to find that there was a clear improvement on MOVE ONE.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
That's right - if you are still under 2000, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 - you are literally either not considering the best move in the position, or you are failing to consider the opponent's best reply to your move.⁣⁣

A clear example:

I completed self-destructed on move 21, failing to even consider much better moves, such as 21.bxa4 or 21.Nc3. (I considered 21.Bh6 at least, but failed to evaluate it correctly). 
⁣⁣
Yeah, I felt tiny inside when I first realized that, too.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
The good news is, I don't 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 unless I know I can 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐮𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫. ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
And that's why the first key calculation technique is '𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬'. ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
But a lesser-known 'trick' I used to calculate efficiently is something called '𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝗪𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞'. ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
It 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 and allowed me to 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 (while maintaining the same quality of moves).⁣⁣

Here is an example from that time:

My opponent didn't handle the opening in the best way, and was in serious time trouble by move 20 trying to get out of the mess he'd created. Nonetheless, the position after move 18 is still practically quite tricky, due to these two knights in my face, right next to the king. If my opponent could bring his queen to the queenside, for example, I could be in trouble.

So I played the 'worst case' move of 18...Ne6 - which, granted, is not the most precise (18...Rg8! Is just crushing), but it solves the problem of the knights in my face, and I was able to play my remaining moves quickly and confidently to exploit my opponent's time pressure and win the game, despite some further mistakes on my part. 

⁣⁣
The key is, when analyzing, instead of trying to find the very best move every move, you figure out what you or the opponent can play '𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞', to save time.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
For example, instead of 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝟸𝟶 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘥𝘶𝘮𝘣 𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦, you can immediately go 'but in the worst case, they can give back the piece and I'm a lot worse off compared to the position I had'. (see, I'm dropping the '𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧' technique now without even trying - I can't keep the secrets hidden even when I should)⁣⁣
⁣⁣
Or, if you are in time trouble, you can quickly 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 '𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞' 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞. That way, if you don't come to a conclusion on the sharper continuation, you can 'keep' the position and 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲. (This is how 'time trouble' addicts like Grischuk are able to maintain a world-class level). ⁣⁣

Here's one recent example from his play:

Many players, on move 55, may be tempted to spend a lot of time checking whether direct moves such as 55.Qh8 or 55.Qh3 win on the spot. (They don't, although the computer likes playing 55.Qh3! Qf5 56.Qh6! Rg8 and only then 57.Qh1! to disrupt Black's coordination a bit).

⁣⁣But Grischuk makes the practical decision to simply improve his pieces with 55.Rd1, giving Black more room to 'hang' himself (as it eventually happened in the game). While the execution of the method could be improved (57.Bd1! is a much better route to b3 than d5, so that White threatens Qa8 in the process), the thinking technique itself played a big role in saving time and energy and gradually wearing down Black's resistance. 

There were many other calculation techniques I was exposed to in that time, but this is the single one that was the biggest game-changer for me.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
And yet, I've hardly seen anyone ever teach it.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
Would you like to 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬 from my 'underground playbook'? ⁣⁣
⁣⁣
Comment 'Playbook'!