What I Learned from Spending 1,000+ Hours Writing an Opening Course

I’ve played the Scandinavian Defense (1.e4 d5) since I was a kid. I love the simplicity and practicality of this opening, which compels White to capture on d5 and fight on Black’s territory. Back in 2016 I wrote a Chessable course recommending the solid albeit slightly passive line 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8, but I always wanted to reserve my “magnum opus” for the more dynamic variation 3...Qa5, which is the line I fell in love with during my youth.

The opportunity to do so came in 2023 while I was recovering from a voice issue (more on that below). I thought writing a comprehensive Scandinavian course might take me 100-200 hours, but it actually required 1,000+ hours to see the course through to publication! Here’s what the journey taught me about constructing a course, mastering a chess opening, and pursuing an ever-expanding goal.

p.s. This piece is first and foremost a personal reflection, and I hope it will inspire or help some readers out there. But you ought to know that I'm also "talking my book" a bit, as this is the first course we’ve released on Chessiverse, my new chess startup. My philosophy has always been to give my advice freely and in abundance, and very occasionally promote a high-quality project I believe in and am a part of. This is obviously one of those occasional moments, and I would be honored if you checked the course and/or Chessiverse out! :) Huge thanks to everyone who has purchased the course or even just sent a congratulatory word - I am overwhelmed by your positive feedback.

Lesson #1: Clarity & cohesion of a repertoire is everything

Opening theory is complex in 2025. Everyone has high-caliber engines at their fingertips, and these programs/neural nets reveal opening nuances at breathtaking speed and impressive depth. Unfortunately, many of the “improvements” our silicon friends spit out are extremely abstract. If you strictly follow engine lines, you’re liable to get confused.

As such, the primary goal for an author of a modern opening guide is to distill heavily-researched opening theory into a repertoire that is practical and digestible to a human. Sometimes, this means deciding NOT to recommend strictly “best” lines! For a human, it’s better to learn a repertoire that is consistent and easy to remember versus an abstract repertoire that may be technically stronger at times. As long as the recommendations stay within an acceptable range (for Black, the “drawing margin”), it’s fine.

In writing my course and witnessing the scope expand to 225,000+ words of analysis, clarity and cohesion became my top priority. To assist in this goal, I frequently developed and inserted “rules” into the text where I advocate a consistent approach for Black.

Here’s one I adhere to throughout the course: When White delays the development of their kingside knight, we’ll respond with ...Bc8-g4. I noticed that I kept analyzing and liking this bishop move when White’s knight remains on g1, as it often provokes the weakening reply f2-f3. It was reliable and easy to remember. So, I decide to recommend this bishop move even in positions where the engine thinks Black may have better options, such as the kingside fianchetto line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.g3 Nf6 5.Bg2. Here the engine slightly prefers the central push 5...e5, but 5...Bg4 is consistent and plenty playable. Another example is 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3, where the engine recommends 2...d4. I’ve never liked this, though, because 3.Nce2 leads to closed positions that don’t conform well to other Scandinavian setups. Instead, I champion 2...dxe4 3.Nxe4 Qd5!?, which is very much in the spirit of our chosen opening! The best White has is 4.Nc3, when 4...Qa5 leads to the 3...Qa5 Scandinavian main line - just one move later.

These rules aid my own understanding as much as the student’s. I play this repertoire too, and I want it to be practical! Everything needs to fit together. Serviceable and steady beats “stronger” yet convoluted.

Lesson #2: Critical lines rarely get played

Writing a theoretical opening work involves confronting a paradox: You’re ultimately judged by the quality of your analysis of critical lines, but these lines seldom occur in practice! The result is that you often spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing lines that rarely, if ever, see the light of day.
An example from the course is the line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Ne5

The multipurpose leap 6.Ne5 is an engine favorite, and Stockfish will typically flash +0.5 to +0.75 when you put this move on board. But it’s only played about 5% of the time at this juncture on Lichess, with 6.Bd2, 6.Bd3, and 6.Bc4 being far more popular. The average student isn’t likely to encounter 6.Ne5 much.

Of course that doesn’t mean you can ignore a critical line like 6.Ne5, though! I spent 90 hours(!) on this branch alone because I knew that if I wanted to create an authoritative work that adequately equips a 3...Qa5 Scandinavian player, it was THAT important to stress-test Black’s position. The play is fascinating, and this section of the course ended up being one of the most unique and all-encompassing in the entire work. Even if many of the rabbit holes I explore after 6.Ne5 never occur in the games of someone who purchases this course, I want them to be secure in the knowledge that the information is there and Black’s game is robust and sound (by the way, 6...c6! is the correct reply).

A responsible opening author will not only tell you what lines are theoretically important, but also where you’re best off spending your valuable study time. I made a point to offer this advice throughout the course - often drawing distinctions between amateur and master play (6.Ne5 is definitely more popular in the latter!).

Lesson #3: Mastering an opening means putting yourself out there

Many people tell themselves that they can purely study their way to chess success. It’s a comforting belief: just gather the best resources, brew a pot of coffee, find a cozy chair, and with enough time, focus, and study sessions there’s nothing about this game you won’t understand! Of course, chess doesn’t work that way, though: you actually have to get in the arena and play it. A lot. Like, A LOT, a lot. And risk losing! You gotta stick your neck out so you gain real-time feedback and actually develop a feel for the game. You wouldn’t expect to become fluent in a language by never speaking it, would you?

Gaining experience matters even more when you’re learning an opening. The shape of the play is unfamiliar, and it won’t EVER begin to feel real until you execute the moves yourself. You need to play the opening you’re studying, and you should do so before you’re truly comfortable. This creates a reference point for your further study/play and generates a positive feedback loop.

Here’s my recommended workflow for learning a new opening:

1. Study enough about an opening to establish a basic framework. The idea is to learn just enough to inspire some confidence/curiosity.
2. Play some practice games in that opening (preferably rapid games). Don’t worry so much about the result, and DEFINITELY don’t worry about whether you’re playing the line 100% correctly! Your only goals should be “test drive” the material and have fun. Enjoy the novelty of this new world you’re discovering! You’re going to feel like an imposter, and that’s OK :)
3. Analyze your play afterwards. Cross-reference the game continuation with your opening resource(s), and note areas for improvement.
4. Repeat, adding in further study, practice games, and analysis. Supplement with model games, spaced repetition, videos, database dives, etc.

This iterative process is the engine that will grow your confidence and power your gradual understanding of an opening. Study, play, refine, repeat. I employed this process myself when learning and writing this course (I even show it in the “Repertoire Rumble” videos, where I put the material into practice on Lichess), and it made the whole endeavor more enjoyable, memorable, and instructive. Mastery through doing!

On Chessiverse we’ve built practice games right into the material by serving you up games in course lines against the human-like bots. Playing actual humans is even better - it may just take awhile to get your chosen line. Spaced repetition can be helpful, but I would not recommend going overboard with it. I think it’s a tool most suitable for smaller, more compact repertoires.

By the way, a benefit of quickly gaining experience in an opening is that it could save you a HUGE amount of time if you decide the opening is not for you! It’s soul-crushing to spend dozens of hours studying opening theory only to discover that you don’t actually enjoy playing the opening. I made this mistake with the Sicilian Najdorf when I was rated about 1900. I spent a couple months learning the theory, but when I finally began playing it in tournaments, I found that the types of positions I was reaching just didn’t resonate with me - even though they were theoretically fine. I gave the opening up, and I would have done so a lot sooner had I jumped right into some training games.

Finally, there’s nothing wrong with preferring the “study only” route. I’ve actually met quite a few chess enthusiasts who love the scholarly or historical parts of the game and have little interest in playing. That’s totally fine - chess is beautiful and ought to be enjoyed however you see fit! But please be honest with yourself: you aren’t going to improve much if you don’t fire up some games (especially serious games). I mention this because there’s a certain type of chess improver who believes they’re an exception to this law of chess “gravity,” and that delusion is usually wrapped up in ego protection. A subject for a future post, perhaps :)

Lesson #4: You need a routine if you hope to tackle such a large project

Looking back, I’m simultaneously surprised and not surprised that I spent over 1,000 hours writing this course. I’m surprised because if you had told me in advance that I would end up working on this material for that long, I NEVER would have attempted this project. After all, 1,000 hours of pretty much any task is going to involve a lot of suffering! :) But I’m not surprised it took me that long and I wound up sticking to it because I followed a routine.

Let me explain. When I decided to begin working on the course in 2023, I had been having mysterious issues with my voice - later diagnosed as muscle tension dysphonia (which has fortunately since improved!). I had shut down pretty much all my teaching and content creation to give my voice a break. I was also trying to avoid any major stressors, as the voice is extremely sensitive to your emotional state. But I’m an ambitious person with a Puritan work ethic (hey, I’m from the midwest US :)), so sitting on my hands wasn’t an option. So, I somewhat arbitrarily resolved to spend one hour a day working on the course. Just one hour! I wasn’t sure how long my voice issues would persist, and I figured one hour/day would allow me to make a dent in the project without stressing myself out.

I’m lingering on this, because I firmly believe this single one hour/day decision allowed me to complete this massive project. I rapidly became accustomed to the one hour/day schedule, and tracking my progress in a Google Sheet became an addicting and rewarding little challenge. I also held myself accountable by posting my progress to a Twitter/X thread every two weeks.

My first public “progress report.” It’s hilarious that I thought I’d be finished with the course in a matter of months! https://x.com/fins0905/status/1713632726761287719?s=20

More granularly, my day-to-day routine looked like this:

• Get some coffee, water, or tea. Sit down at my computer, and open my Scandi file in ChessBase (the program I used to analyze/write the course).
• Put on background music or podcast. I found soundtracks to be nice to listen to (“Inception” and “Gettysburg” are two of my favorites) because they have no words and don’t mess with your writing flow. Funnily, financial podcasts also worked for me! These podcasts come out constantly, and the guests often speak in monotone and say more or less the same thing. Ideal background noise.
• Open up Google Chrome browser. Type “stopwatch” and start timer.
• Put in one hour of focused work. No checking email/phone, no opening other browser tabs. If I got up to use the bathroom or get a drink, I’d simply pause the timer.
• After one hour, I’d decide to either stop or continue writing (depending on my energy/mood).
• Whenever I decided to end the session, I’d save my progress in ChessBase (I actually probably did this every 5 minutes...those of you who have ChessBase know!), stop the timer, and tally the total session time in a Google Sheet. I’d also briefly note what I worked on and where I left off in the course, and then back up my Scandi file in Google Drive.

That’s it! Just coffee, ChessBase, some background music/noise, a timer, focused work, and recording each session. Initially I worked a lot from home on my desktop, but in late 2023 I bought a gaming laptop that could run Stockfish 16/17 at high depth without overheating. So, I began working from different coffee shops to mix things up.

Sometimes I’d work for just one hour, but often I’d get engrossed in the course and go longer (the average of my 538 sessions was a little under two hours). I did miss or skip days due to travel, illness, or just generally not feeling it. Very occasionally I’d only work for 15-30 minutes/day. But I always kept one hour/day as my “North Star,” and working “ahead” gave me some mental slack on the days I produced little or no work. You can see my workload increased in the second half of 2024:

That’s 538 sessions logged for a total of 1,026 hours!

I completed most of the analysis in late 2024 and then paused to work with the Chessiverse team to develop the course experience in the first half of 2025 (this was many additional hours, which I’m not counting). The last push in the summer of 2025 was spent on final edits and getting the course ready for publication. By the way, editing was surprisingly time-consuming: the total editing time was a few hundred hours(!).

I realize “establish a routine to tackle a large project” is hardly ground-breaking advice. But many people asked me about my workflow, and I thought it’d be fun to share the routine that yielded 1,000+ hours of work on a single project. The key drivers were 1) setting an achievable, fixed daily time goal, 2) committing to focused work, and 3) meticulously tracking and recording the time I spent. I would especially highlight the importance of tracking and recording the time spent. It’s REALLY cool to see the total time gradually stacking up - as your routine develops, you realize how much you’re truly capable of with consistent, focused work! Following this process established the momentum and predictability I needed to bring this course to fruition, even when I hugely overshot my initial expectation from the outset of completing this course in 100-200 hours. Without a routine, I’m not certain I could have finished this project; at minimum, I think it would have taken me an extra year or two! Maybe my experience will help you with your own project - be it school, work, a hobby, or chess.

Lesson #5: I’ve gained greater respect for anyone grinding on their goals

OK, this post risks becoming longer than my course (ha!), so I’ll keep this last section short!

At some point, a project like The Comprehensive Scandinavian becomes personal. I’m quite certain I could have created a meaningful course in 50-100 hours of work, and it might have even sold similarly to the final 1,000+ hour version. But I would have noticed the difference in quality, and that would have bothered me. I didn’t set out to create a repertoire that was “good enough” - I set out to create the BEST repertoire I possibly could. Likewise, I was never married to the 1,000+ hour figure; that’s just how long it took me to produce a work that lived up to my goal. Sticking to my personal standards is what I’m most proud of on this arduous journey.

A couple of months ago I stumbled upon the Chessable course The Energetic 1.e4 - Part 1 by IM Sebastian Mihajlov. It caught my eye due to its staggering length: 304,000+ words of instruction, and 108+ hours of video. That’s a HUGE amount of work!

Remarkably, that is JUST Part 1! The author has also published Part 2 and Part 3, which are an additional 213,000+ words/112+ hours and 304,000+ words/120 hours respectively (he’s also apparently working on Part 4!).

I do not know Mr. Mihajlov, but I have enormous respect for him. He decided to tackle a colossal project - an original, complete repertoire with 1.e4 - and see it through to the end. He, too, must feel compelled to write to his personal standards - no matter how long it takes.

So, don’t be afraid to set lofty goals. If your goals come from the heart and you commit to putting in the work (and maybe recording in a Google Sheet ;)), I promise you WILL find a way to accomplish them. And please share your journey with me when you do!

Thanks for reading.