Ask your GM Chesscoach

What do you think of My System by Aron Nimzowitsch? It's a bit of a silly question but genuinely curious what you have to say about it.

How to calculate very well...with precision and speed?

Hi

Is bullet also good for improvement. I always hear coaches say do not play bullet. Why not, it is so much fun.

I often hear or read instructions/advice like "adopting a light/dark square strategy", or pointing out "the player now has a weakness on the light/dark squares." These seems to simply mean the best squares for my pieces are likely to be light/dark squares, so barring immediate tactics, when looking to improve my position moves that get my pieces on the corresponding squares are likely to be better than ones that do not (much like putting my pawns on the squares that correspond to my missing Bishop will generally improve my position over having them on squares of the colour of my remaining Bishop).
Does the notion of light/dark squared weaknesses or strategy only come into play when the opponent has lost the corresponding Bishop? And does this concept evaporate once the player has likewise lost that Bishop? (I suppose Queen's on the board could matter - so maybe the more general question is whether this concept hinges on there being diagonal pieces on the board?)
For some reason the dark/light square weakness and/or strategy idea is one I don't fully feel comfortable with, and I'm not sure if I'm just over-complicating the notion or missing something more subtle about how to utilise it. Sorry if my question isn't entirely clear, but that reflects my own confusion with regards to the ideas.

so how to actually get better and not get stuck at a certain level

how can i improve my general skill set against openings, do I just look at all of them and try and learn how to play against them or do i try and play a system like the Colle or London?

Hello danzyrehatff, openings are very extensivea quick overview of openings you can find in short and sweets of courses on Chessable. If you like to make openingrepertoires yourself then a good idea is to divide openings into mainlines. So, with the Scandinavian. If you choose 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 then you can divide it into 3...Qa5, 3...Qd6, 3...Qd8 and workout the most played lines.

The higher you level the more extensive these repertoires will become, but I'd recommend only starting with openings when you have around 1500 on chess.com.

My students do all of it. They practice tactics, and also look at their games for positional improvements and weaknesses.

What would you rate nimzo larsen opening on a scale of 1-10 and why

Practice a lot by solving calculation excersizes. Have a coach to help you automize the steps of calculating. Take note that calculation only becomes a thing when you are close to titled player level.

Thank you for taking the time to create this thread for the chess community

Do you have any advice for practicing blindfold chess? Other than memorized opening theory and some theoretical endgames, I can never really visualize more than a few moves blindfolded. I'm still not great at visualizing what squares have relation to another, but it's something I've been trying to get better at lately; more as an exercise on the side of me practicing my calculation skills (which I believe is slightly below where it should be for my level, so I've been reading GM Aagaard's book, Calculation).

I can win some basic endgames blindfolded (like King+pawn vs King), but I seem to not be able to visualize the entire board when many pieces are there. Any advice is appreciated

Do I really need calculation to become a strong IM or GM? What if I have Capablanca/Carlsen level endgame skill or positional understanding? Or like the great Richard Reti, I only see "one move ahead"?

It's not so great, because you basically do things on instinct instead of real thinking and with real thinking you can get stronger.

Hello AngusByers, thanks for the extensive question. I honestly don't really focus on the colour of squares unless it's to highlight something. A clear example is when your opponent has fianchetto'd but lost the accompanying bishop. Now those square can be used for attacking purposes. When the bishop is there, I don't really have to highlight it. So, I wouldn't think about it too much. It's more to explain than an actual strategy, which could be: make use of the squares around the king to create a kingside attack. And they happen to be light/dark.

Keep practicing, at some point you'll unstuck yourself.

I would focus mostly on one opening at a time. Once you've mastered one, go the next. So, the London or Colle are very easy systems to learn. I prefer the Colle because that creates a little more dynamic than the London, more pawntentions and trades. You'll learn more from it.

That depends on the tournament-situation, players and repertoire. I would give it a 6 overall. Not a bad opening.

Thanks for the kind words, happy to help!

Visualisation is what usually happens as a side-product from practicing a lot. So, keep solving puzzles and make them gradually more difficult so that you'll have to see more.