A Few Practical Chess Insights For Intermediate Players

I thought at this point I would share a few practical chess insights (none original of course) for intermediate players that have helped me improve. If they don't speak to you, feel free to ignore them. If others have any to add, please do so.

1. In every art, there are some basic rules that beginners are taught. I'm referring here to strategic rules, not the constitutive rules of the game. But when one studies the masters, one finds that they break the rules all the time. It's as true for chess as, say,musical composition.
   1.1. So we're taught not to leave pieces hanging. But masters leave all kinds of pieces hanging. You never get to touch them, though, because if you do you get mated; worse, those hanging pieces often combine to kill you.
   1.2. Everything turns out to be timing - I don't mean the clock, but tempo timing. If only you had another move you could take his rook. But guess what? You don't have another move. It's all tempo. You have a wonderful plan, except that his plan is one move ahead of yours, so you're screwed.
   1.3. FM Aviv Friedman gives this really useful advice on yt. (I benefit much from his lectures). When an intermediate player's piece is attacked, his or her hand (or mouse) is immediately on the piece, looking for a safe square to move it to. Worse, they usually move it backward, retreating, because that's where the safe squares are. A master, by contrast, looks for a good move, period. That could mean:
   1.3.1 moving a different piece and creating a threat. They can take you but it might cost them more.
   1.3.2 moving another piece to gain a strong strategic advantage, thus offering the attacked piece as a sacrifice.
   1.3.3 Instead of retreating, move another piece to support the attacked piece (when not attacked by a pawn), so you're advancing, not retreating. In general, strong players hate retreating, unless it consolidates control of the centre. In sum: Don't automatically put your hand/mouse on the attacked piece.

2. But certain kinds of threats you should get rid of immediately: a knight or other piece advancing into your territory, or a pin. Waiting is usually costly. (From yt: Polgar: always unpin a pin. Serwan: get rid of a piece in your territory).

3. Don't be afraid to sacrifice an exchange for a good strategic advantage, especially if you have two bishops (which can compensate for the loss of the rook). Sometimes they have a monster knight on a forward outpost that is severely preventing you from manoeuvring or carrying out a plan, or is defending strategic squares. You can bash it with your rook, but are frozen by aversion to losing the exchange. Consider: it may be worth it for the initiative, and you might be able to get back material later.

4. Speaking of two bishops, they are great at harassing rooks in the middle or even end game. Look to make his rooks' lives miserable; often good things come of it.

5. Speaking of which, from puzzles I learnt: if his rook is adventurous, especially getting active around a lot of pawns in mid-board, or invading your territory a bit too early, look to trap its ass. I noticed at least 5% of puzzles are rook traps. Carefully examine his escape squares and what you can do about them.

6. This is too obvious to mention, but I'll repeat it anyway: always consider all the moves the opponent might make in reply to your move. If you see they have a good reply, look for a better move, rather than hope they won't see the reply. (The intermediate's version of beginners looking for fool's mate).

7. In complicated situations, especially if you don't see a way of getting a clear advantage, consider possible moves just because they ARE possible (even if not immediately attractive). Sometimes you discover the right move that way.

Will stop here. Additions are welcome, especially from strong players.

The stronger player will keep tension longer.

When you exchange pawns, you're exchanging the pawns that are removed from the board. That is, when white exchanges on d5, he exchanges a pawn on the 4th for a pawn on the 3rd. This is considered a bad exchange on general principles.

I believe both are from Igor Smirnov.

Some GM has written, I forget which one, in any given position I first look at how I can sacrifice each one of my pieces. Only if I can see no advantage from such a sacrifice do I move on to looking at safe moves.

@nayf , Thanks for the practical insights. ( I'm guessing that the difference between an intermediate player and a master may be in putting the things you've mentioned into practice game in and game out... ) // @jonesmh I agree; Keeping the tension is the way to play. ( By the way: Celine>>> Darkness personified <<< Celine. )

@jonesmh

Very true. I have heard GMs say that: Keep the tension. Often both sides keep tension because the one who takes first is worse off. Yes, that's a good point: after you take on d5, you no longer have your c4 pawn that was at least partially controlling d5. However, I notice that stockfish tends to accept gambits more readily, or recommends White take on d5 in Queen's gambit before developing the light bishop.
One situation in which it is almost obligatory to take on d5 is when Black gets the move order wrong and plays Nf6 too early (before d6 or c6). cxd5 forces Nxd5, then white gets to advance e4 immediately (attacking N). If white has already played Nc3 and black takes Nxc3, bxc3 leaves white with a nice centre (b3, d4, e4). Black will attack it immediately with c5, but I think white should emerge with a better centre.

Another case: In Sicilian, after 1e4 c5 2Nf3 Nc6 3d4, theory requires 3...cxd4. I guess one must exercise the point of c5 and take toward the centre, exchanging a more peripheral pawn for white's central pawn. In any case, after 4 Nxd4, a new tension is produced with the knights, neither of which are recommended to take.

@sparowe14 I like that! Yes, very much the advanced mentality, but one has to know what one is doing. One sometimes encounters weak imitators who make unsound sacrifices and get their ass handed to them on a platter.

@Rumble_Fish Indeed.

Ever notice, GMs always talk of strong versus weak moves. I'm still struggling to grasp what makes a strong move strong. Essentially it means that no matter what the opponent does in reply, the side that made the strong move has the best options. I wish I could say more.

What I've noticed at my level (low 2000s) is that a key characteristic of stronger players is their ability to find in-between moves that can make a huge difference (ie a variation on your 1.3 point). So when there's an exchange, for example, throwing in a check or a threat between you capturing their piece and them capturing back. I feel like 1800-2200 players see the exchange and calculate it out correctly, but are liable to miss the in-between moves, whereas 2200+ players often find those kind of moves and can kill a game dead with them.

Of course this can be especially deadly in bullet where players will capture and pre-move, expecting the recapture, only to find an in-between attack on their queen loses them the game instantly.

In-between moves are tricky, because sometimes there are subtle counters you can find that stop the in-between move working, but taking a moment before recapturing in an exchange to think "is there anything helpful I can do first?" can improve your results enormously.

Here are a few differences I have noticed that usually happen when comparing a weaker and stronger player.

Weak players tend to hang material for nothing. This is a core difference between weaker and stronger players. This aspect alone of the weak player's play makes victory pretty much guaranteed against them. You can simply wait until they hang something then grind them down from there.

Weaker players often miss tactics. Sometimes it's material as mentioned above, but other times it's allowing for their pieces to be forced into a way that they have no good squares, or pinned badly.

Weak players have different weaknesses. Some players can open the first 20 moves in a way that even a GrandMaster would be okay with, but they don't understand the positions well enough, and they usually suck at endgames.

Weak players say something like. "I had a winning position then lost."
Strong players say something like "I had a worse position then won."

As Magnus said in that one video a while back "too weak too slow". Stronger players manage the clock better at the same time they are making solid moves.

Weaker players don't know how to play defense. They can attack okay, but when they are on the receiving end they run around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

There are many other differences these are the main ones I think of.

@Toytoise Interesting point. I know what you mean, too, about subtle countermoves against the in-between move. I've fallen victim to those more than once, after thinking I was being so smart in not taking back immediately. The most obvious thing to look out for is if he can move his attacked piece, both blocking your in-between threat and escaping, leaving you down the exchange. Or moving his attacked piece to create a new threat, answering the in-between move that way while again leaving you with the lost piece. But definitely good to keep in mind: don't automatically finish the exchange before considering other moves.
About 7% of puzzles are eat fests, where players capture each other several times, and you have to calculate carefully. The best ones have these subtle variations, where you have to choose which piece to capture, and WITH WHICH PIECE to capture. These really test one's calculative abilities because there may be several 3, 4, or 5-move variations to consider. It is easy to overlook something

@lurarose Everyone misses tactics, not just "weak players". When I do a computer check of my own games, I want to punch myself for tactics I missed, after almost every game! One type I miss often: take a pawn protected by a piece, so you lose the piece, but recapture by forking his two pieces with a pawn (thereby winning a pawn). I sometimes look at games by higher rated players 2200-2300, and see they too miss lots of tactics, especially in rapid and blitz. I suppose GMs in long games rarely miss them.

The thing about capturing pawns is not convincing

@jonesmh You wrote: "That is, when white exchanges on d5, he exchanges a pawn on the 4th for a pawn on the 3rd. This is considered a bad exchange on general principles."

Can you explain this just a bit more? I'm not understanding this and I want to.