First lessons of a chess coach

I had my first chess lesson tonight. It was fun. Jon is a very nice guy, quite enthusiastic, has the hallmarks of an experienced coach, and is pretty freaking amazing at the game (the range of moves he instantly saw in the games we went over was just depressing).

I went to his house near Raleigh for an hour lesson (we went for over an hour and a half). He started by going over a couple of games I had brought over. He went through them lightning fast, variation after variation that I hadn't considered, and giving me some strong advice here and there (e.g., don't give up a piece to maintain your kingside pawn structure unless there is a concrete way he can quickly exploit that weakness). Going through those games I started to get worried: one thing many instructors do who are good players is go too fast, assuming the student is following along, going through variations quickly saying "Right?" all the time. It was a little like that. Luckily, as I'll discuss, this was more to give him a sense for my skill level than to do a close analysis.

Once we had gotten through the quick overview of the games, we switched to endgame mode. I had brought about five endgame books over. The next hour or so was pretty intense. He taught me three endgame scenarios. One, King and single pawn versus king. I have worked on those before, so that was kind of fast. Then, Queen versus pawn. I had never seen the whole queen triangulation trick to get the king close to the pawn. Then, the Philidor position in which you draw with a rook against a rook and a pawn.

It was when he was teaching me new ideas that I realized he is an excellent teacher. He would set up the position and have me play him. When I made a mistake, he wouldn't tell me, but just win. Then he'd set it up again and ask some leading questions until I hit on the right idea on my own. When I asked for the answer, he would ask me "What do you think? What is your plan" (I have a feeling the question "What is your plan?" will start to become a nagging voice in my head during games). It forced me to give my opinions, which he could then challenge or correct. By the time I understood the position, he would change it a little bit (e.g., in the Q vs P, if the pawn is on the rook or bishop file the queen trick often won't work), or change the side to move. That is, we looked at the same problem from multiple angles to get a sense for its parameters, until I had a clear idea of the plan and the right moves.

Endgames are sweet: with knowledge of what is winning, I'll know better what types of positions to steer toward in the middle game (yes, a truism, but to actually be doing it is sweet)). I'll need to practice them until I can do them without thinking.

The amazing thing was, he was able to do this while looking through each one of the endgame books. He just didn't have to focus on the board. He would look for a split second, make the move, and keep poring through the books. He particularly liked Lev Alburt's book ("If I had had this when I was starting out, I would probably be a much better endgame player." That is pretty impressive from an IM, which he has been for about 20 years). Since he thought the Albert book was a bit too advanced, we decided on this great gem of a book by Bert Rosen, Chess Endgame Training, which is based on an endgame course Rosen teaches in Germany. I will supplement it with more concept-heavy explanations in Seirawan's Winning Chess Endings.

He suggested I not spend a lot of time right now learning the pawnless endings (e.g., rook versus queen), that since I know all the main ones, to focus on king and pawn and then rook endgames. When I told him I play the Bishop's opening, he said he wants me to stop, and to start playing 2. Nf3 as white. He also thinks that at this point I shouldn't be studying much in the openings anyway except trying to apply general principles. This seems reasonable. Since he kicks ass, I'm pretty much going to follow his advice and see how it goes.

I was pretty darn exhausted by the end of the lesson. We had established a good rapport: I felt very comfortable with him. He asked, near the end, "Do you know the most drawish endgame?" I had no idea, so I busted his chops with "Two knights versus king." (He was looking for bishops of opposite color). Finally, when I told him I don't play many slow time controls, but focus mostly on puzzles and the like, partly forever training but not playing for fear of losing, he told me to start playing and losing more. He said, especially as an IM who is not as good as he was fifteen or twenty years ago, he has the same fears, but that it's just a damned game and to have fun. Sane and sage advice!

I feel pretty lucky to have him as a coach, and will be meeting with him every Thursday. Updates will undoubtedly follow...Incidentally, as discussed here, he gives 30/30 simuls on Saturday and Wednesday nights at ICC.