ask a professional chess player anything

Sorry @EricHansen you didnt get the spot, it was very close altought. Hope you enjoy your trip to south america.

Is it me or do players suck each other off on the forums?

Which chess book was the most helpful one throughout your career?

This is an awesome thread - thanks for spending your time to answer all these questions!  I have a couple, if you would be so kind?:

1. What is the most common mistake (conceptually) that you see sub-expert players making in their games?  What really jumps out at you?
2. In your opinion, where is the best place to get good, strong, long time control games on the internet?  Where do you go?

I know the questions weren't directed at me but hopefully they have some value anyway:

1.A tough question since players are viewed individually instead of as a group.  In general the weaker the player the less accurate and knowledgeable they are, but this needs clarification.  Below 2000 is a huge threshold so I'll try breaking it down:

1800-2000: Overly dynamic and sometimes forgetting the reasons behind the dynamism, the static advantages that can eventually be converted in an endgame.

1600-1800: Can calculate six moves ahead with ease, so tactics aren't an issue here except for more complex ones (at this level Dvoretsky's School of Chess Excellence 2 will really push you and you likely will only get half of the problems correct, and some of those will be partially correct like finding the best move but not the proper follow ups.)  The real issue here is lack of proper time management and moving fast when one should take their time.  In other words, overestimating their intuition. 

1400-1600: Can be a bit optimistic, knows that bishops are generally stronger than knights and why and when a knight is stronger.  Their strategic endings are typically weak, but many coaches discourage reading Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy until a bit after this level.  I have gotten away with impulsive unsound exchange sacs at this level because handling of the resulting positions were lost on the opponent instead of the reasons I thought at the time (his knight could close lines obstructing my other rook, I'll transition to a pure rook endgame where I have the superior pawn structure and he just has isolated pawns left.)

Under 1400: The levels just kind of meld since big obvious mistakes are the norm.  Some positional rules might be known, but such players lack the grasp of the position's spirit (a term coined by Romanovsky in his Soviet Middle Game Technique) and play their openings with total disregard to why theory moves were played. The spirit of the position is its most important imbalances, like the weak d5 (and sometimes f5,d6, b6, and others too) square in most open Sicilians would be one, or pressure against white's d4 pawn in the French.  In many isolated d-pawn positions the position cries out for white to prepare a kingside attack switching between the a2-f8 or b1-h7 diagonals or preparing a d5 advance to dynamically blast the position and unleash some activity and pressure. 

2. I really want to answer such a question, but it's against the guidelines.  Community guidelines need to be respected since using one platform to promote the competition is unseemly.  Competition is a good thing, whether in chess or business. 

do you recommend any particular openings for lower-level players (like me)? I really like the Kings Indian attack because it seems safe and I can castle quickly and focus on tactics and position.

I like the French or Caro-Kann as black. 

But I don't really see the point of spending too much time (at my level of play) learning opening lines. 

Agree/disagree?

thanks for your generous help and advice. this is a great and worthwhile thread

@TheGreatOogieBoogie:

Thanks for your input on my questions.  Regarding the 1800-2000 section, could you clarify wat you mean by 'forgetting the reasons behind the dynamism'?  Is it that players in that category tend to make too many static compromises to boost their dynamism, then end up losing to stronger players in the endgame because of those static weaknesses?

As far as part 2: I didn't realize it's against community guidelines to talk about other sites and I'm sure I've seen people do it on here before ..

Like playing something to gain an empty initiatitve thinking you'll get something from it.  Sometimes you might play a d5 break against e6 with an isolated d-pawn but go nowhere with it or play the center counter, or think a d4 or d5 break is the solution to all your problems when you don't have the proper preperation for it. 

Different players have different weaknesses and styles however but I noticed a trend where people want activity even without substance. 

Shereshevsky at 1600 ? Really ? My old coach GM Nigel Davies confessed he didn't tackle the book until he was aiming for IM level...

I know today's standards are higher, but still...

At that level it sounds like Shereshevsky was long overdue because of its foundational knowledge for this phase of the game.  How to Play Chess Endgames and Secrets of Chess Endgame Strategy build on this foundation.  I've gone through secrets and part of HtPCE so far.  Then you have Dvoretsky's School of Chess Excellence 1 and the second half of 3 that really push one's abilities here. 

Many players develop differently so maybe he was very strong in other areas to make up for it. 

The concepts in Shereshevsky's book lay foundational knowledge in one part of the game, one wouldn't wait until FM level to know opening basics such as develop, castle, connect the rooks and control the center and theoretical ending basics like the Lucena or Short Side Defence would they? 

The truth, however, is you don't need books at all to reach 2000. 

Another truth is that any given player at a rating of 1700 is going to have a different skillset than another player at 1700.

OogieBoogie, your perpetual idea that people need certain books for certain skills and ratings is flawed. While you may be trying to help, you are simply spreading misinformation.

Indeed. Though these basic concepts are covered in more basic texts than Shereshevsky's 

It's certainly useful to know how to probe by creating a second weakness in a strategic endgame, or to know when and how to use schematic thinking rather than calculation, but whether these things need to be learnt/trained on the onset of class B is highly debatable...

Sure there's a chance you'll figure stuff out on your own, but the competition is taking advantage of their resources to improve in the most efficient way possible.  If you have two 1500s play against each other and one read a book whose information is relevant to the position then he'll have a big advantage in that situation.  Chess is like a trade and a science and being familiar with the works and wisdom of previous and current superior players then you’ll at least level the playing field against the competition.  In books concepts and details are covered that one may never figure out on their own, much of which was figured out by the authors themselves at home during study as opposed to figuring stuff out over the board, in particular many endings requiring very accurate play.  If your opponent is familiar with the analysis you may lose, but if you’re both familiar you’ll secure the draw for example. 

Would You ever dare to play 1.f4 against another GM in a standard chess game ?

...
Many people say that Bird's openning is rubbish, hence the question. 

I have read that all grandmasters can play blindfold chess.  Can anyone learn to do that who studies memorization techniques?  How difficult is it for you? 

Sure, these are many examples of alternatives to books that would be more helpful to certain players. More great alternatives, recommended by masters all the time, include playing lots of games with other experienced players, and doing analysis of your own games (sometimes on your own, sometimes with the help of those who are better than you).

Giving the impression that players must read certain books is doing a disservice to those who learn better by different methods. Chess "knowledge" is not locked away in these books. All these observations were once made by people who played and studied actual games. Observations, understanding, and improvement can be made (and often are made) completely without ever cracking open OogieBoogie's specific regimentation of books.

Another fundamental flaw in your ideas, OogieBoogie, is that everyone is shooting to be a top level chess player. Not everyone needs a flawless foundation or specific path in chess. In fact, that would likely take away the enjoyment of most amateurs.

What is your favorite place to travel? (Outside your home country.)

What is your favourite colour and do You paint your pieces that colour?

Did you know that 15 minutes could save you 15%(or more)on your car insurance?