Mediaboss Marketing

Mike Vick was recently on the Pat McAfee show, and talked about how he knew hed have success with Andy Reid in Philadelphia, other teams that called him out of prison, and getting his butt kicked by a 12 year old in chess:

I am so impressed with people who can play chess. Not even the ability to play really, Im sure I could take a week to learn the game, but the patience. The different strategies that go into moving a pawn or rook confuse me so much that I lose interest two moves in. Give me checkers and diagonal moves all day. Double jumps. Triple jumps. King me bitch and Im an absolute menace all over the board. Backwards. Forwards. You cant escape me. American Checkers, Chinese Checkers, doesnt matter, Kyle in 4. Throw me into chess and Im drowning in the deep end of the pool. My kings head would be off faster than Ned Starks (spoiler alert).

Chess prodigies are up there with golfing prodigies as the cockiest motherfuckers around! Look at this article from Michael Vitez of the Inquirer when Vick played chess with an 18 year old at a charity event:

Jowel knew he owned the quarterback on the sixth move.

When he didnt want to trade his queen, I said, Hes intimidated by me now, Jowel said. Thats when I gave him my moves.

Vick has the Superman emblem tattooed on his right hand, but it didnt help. At one point, showing mercy, Jowel said, I dont think you want to make that move, Mr. Vick.

Jowel piled up pieces.

Apparently, youre in a mess right now, Jowel told him.

Vick talked tough, full of bravado.

You get a ticket for every win, Vick said.

This brought a giant smile to Jowels face.

One ticket for every win?

And he turned to the crowd. Who wants to go to an Eagles game? Jowel asked.

In seven minutes, just 17 moves for Jowel, it was over. Checkmate.

The whole interview was really good, if you have the time, but these two clips stood out to me. The one below is Mike talking about being thrown into his first game once Kevin Kolb went down:

The other was a funny story from the 2010 playoff game against the Packers. Which brought back some bad memories. I honestly thought we were going to the Super Bowl that year. If I was to rank all of the worst Eagles playoff losses this game is right below the 2009 NFC Championship game, which is below early 2000 losses. The moment theyre talking about happens at 2:00:53 on the goal line late in the game. Dont watch the whole game its 0 fun.

See more here:
Mike Vick Got His Butt Kicked in Chess By a 12 Year Old While In Philly - Crossing Broad

Few players in the NBA have done more to lift their stock this season than Ja Morant. The Memphis Grizzlies star is a legitimate MVP threat as he guides Memphis to an impressive 34-17 record.

Morant is known for being a high-scoring, highly-athletic guard capable of taking over a game. Though according to Draymond Green, his intelligence vaults him into a category with future Hall of Famers LeBron James and Chris Paul.

Little by little, the Grizzlies have become relevant since the third-year guard Morant entered the league. Memphis went 34-39 his rookie season before going 38-34 and securing the Western Conferences eighth seed last year. Now, Morants Grizzlies have nearly matched last seasons win total and comfortably sit in the three-seed.

To no surprise, Morants breakout is the primary reason for Memphis sharp rise. The 22-year-old is averaging a career-high 25.9 points after scoring 17.8 and 19.1 points the last two seasons. He is also shooting a career-best 48.8% from the field and 35.7% from three while averaging 7.0 assists, 6.1 rebounds, and a personal-best 1.3 steals.

Morant has been excellent all season, but hes been especially brilliant since returning from a knee sprain on Dec. 20. Since then, hes averaging 27.6 points on 49.9% shooting. That places him seventh in the NBA ahead of fellow stars Devin Booker, James Harden, and Nikola Jokic.

The former Murray State Racer is currently in the midst of his best five-game stretch of the season. Morant has scored 30 or more points in five straight contests, including a season-best 41 points on Jan. 26. Friday against the Utah Jazz, the 6-foot-3 guard registered his first triple-double of the season with 30 points, 10 boards, and 10 helpers.

One of the teams Morant and the Grizzlies will have to go through out west is the Golden State Warriors. Specifically, theyll have to go through Green.

The 2016-17 Defensive Player of the Year stopped by JJ Redicks podcast The Old Man and the Three to talk about a variety of subjects. When Redick asked Draymond about the smartest players hes gone up against or played with, the Warriors star gave a surprising answer.

The smartest players Ive played against are, by far, LeBron, Rajon Rondo, and Chris Paul, Green said. And whos creeping up into that category is Ja Morant.

Green, a six-time All-Defensive Team selection, elaborated on what impresses him the most about the young Morant.

Everybody is excited about how Ja Morant flies around, everybodys excited about the passes he may throw all of those things are very exciting. Dont get me wrong, they excite me too. But the thing that excites me the most about Ja Morant is when were playing against the Memphis Grizzlies and, not quite to the level of LeBron James, Chris Paul, or Rajon Rondo, but when were playing against those guys, I can feel the chess match. Every possession down, theyre looking at me, scoping me out to see where Im at. Im looking at their guys to see what theyre doing, and every time down the floor its like a chess match. Its like that with Ja.

Draymond stopped short of claiming Morant was at LeBrons overall playing level or whether he was headed to the Hall of Fame. But he sees a very bright future for the Grizzlies star.

Hes in his third year, Green explained. Not quite to the level of those guys yet, but I didnt have the privilege of playing against those guys at that time in their career. But Id only imagine it was along those same lines as Ja.

With Golden State in the two-seed and Memphis in the three-seed, Morant and Green could be going head-to-head in an epic playoff series. It would be a rematch of last years play-in game for the eight-seed, where Ja dropped 35 to help the Grizzlies shock the Dubs 117-112 in overtime.

After his clutch performance in the Bay last year, Morant has kept it rolling against Golden State in 2021-22. In just his fifth game of the year, the former Murray State Racer scored 30 points in a three-point Memphis victory. Three days after returning from injury in December, Morant offered up another 21 points in a nine-point loss on the road. Then on Jan. 11, Ja took advantage of the Green-less Warriors by registering 29 points and eight assists in the eight-point win.

Its a chess match when were playing the Grizzlies, Green told Redick. And I, as the anchor of our defense and facilitator on offense, feel that.

For what its worth, the 10-year veteran does see at least one way to expose Ja. While its better than it has previously been, Morants defense presents an opportunity for growth.

Ja hasnt gotten that part yet of where on the defensive end, I have to be worried about you too because youre so smart [and] youre sniffing out everything, Green said. He is that smart, but he just doesnt understand how to sniff out everything yet. Whereas with those guys (LeBron, CP3, Rondo), Ill throw a pass and LeBron will be right out there waiting as if I was throwing a pass to him.

Considering Morant is still just 22, he has plenty of room to become a highly-intelligent defender. And he might have a chance to do it this spring against Draymond and the Warriors.

All statistics courtesy of Basketball Reference.

RELATED: Shaquille ONeal Adds to the Ja Morant MVP Train With an Intriguing and Personal Comparison

Originally posted here:
Ja Morant Earned a Glowing Comparison to LeBron James and Chris Paul From Draymond Green: I Can Feel the Chess Match - Sportscasting

Endgame theory for practical games is a part of the comprehensive endgame theory, it contains the positions that are most likely encountered in play. More exotic piece combinations might be relevant to both practical play and endgame studies, or only to endgame studies. The recently-proven win in the endgame of rook and two bishops on the same square color and pawn against queen and pawn (i.e. KRBBP-KQP with bishops on the same square color) that takes nearly 600 moves will never be relevant in a game, for example.

However, the example also provides the most important difference between practical endgame theory and such that applies only to endgame studies: The 50 move rule and all of its derivatives, such as the 75 move rule that existed for a time, are not in effect during the endgame study. Only the absolute truth in a position, not the practical outcome, is sought for. Human comprehension ends somewhere on the trenches of the battlefields of endgame tablebases generated endgame theory.

Marc Bourzutschky, 2021 (as reported in EG, October 2021). White wins (Distance to Conversion) in 584 moves

"Distance to Conversion" (DTC) is the metric that does not evaluate the length to checkmate ("Distance to Mate", DTM), which would be preferred by many endgame study composers, but to "conversion", which is the term for either a capture or a pawn promotion.

There also is a metric to evaluate the distance until the 50 move rule resets: "Distance to Zero" (DTZ). However, for the eight-piece endgames with blocked pawns only the DTC metric is currently available, and only due to the usage of 7 piece "endgame tablebases" (EGTB), which the game would become if a pawn is captured.

If the pawns weren't blocked, four more subsets of tablebases for the promotion of each pawn and 16 more subsets of tablebases for the promotion of both pawns would be necessary, all for eight pieces, i.e. a total of 24 endgames that don't need to be generated for the analysis of blocked pawns. (Andrew Buchanan sent me the following link with information from April 2021)

Thanks to Karsten Mller, I was able to ask Marc Bourzutschky. He replied (12 January 2021):

We have been focusing on the subset of 8-man endings that contain at least one set of opposing pawns, i.e., endings where there is at least one white pawn which is on the same file as a black pawn, on a rank below that black pawn. We call such endings OP1. A good half of 8-man endings that arise in practice are OP1. It takes about 1/100 the amount of resources to generate all the OP1 endings compared to generating all 8-man endings, so in terms of practical applications focusing on OP1 endings is a very good trade-off. Within the OP1 endings, we have more or less completed all endings with up to 4 pawns total that are of the form XPP vs YPP, or XPPP vs YP, where X and Y are non-pawns, as well as all OP1 endings that can arise from that set via promotion. Famous examples from the Karpov-Kasparov world championship matches are RBP vs BNP and NPPP vs BP.

This is just to give a short overview of where endgame theory currently stands: All endgames with up to seven pieces are known as well as some pawnless endgames with eight pieces and special cases of other endgames with eight pieces, such as with blocked pawns.

The book "Endgame Magic" by John Beasley and Timothy Whitworth has a helpful appendix that lists the endgames that are won. Again, this does not take the 50 moves rule into account, as it doesn't apply to endgame studies. The information there is the source for the following list. Bishops on the same square color aren't considered, if a player has multiple bishops. Please note that the evaluation of endgames would change on non-standard board sizes, for example KQ-KR was proven to be drawn if the chessboard has I think at least four times the usual size (16x16), as then the queen can't forcibly win the rook, as such the list only holds water on the normal 8x8 chessboard. We attach the important information from the list at the end of the article.

The endgame theory advancements led to corrections of seemingly incorrect studies or vice versa. The solvers of earlier times have found incorrectnesses that led to endgames that looked drawn, but were proven to be won by computers. Composers might have been certain that endgames were drawn, but they also were won, in which case a study might be incorrect. Jrgen Fleck's study that I showed a few months ago was a corrected version because...

Jrgen Fleck, "Schach" 01/1995, 1st prize. White to move and draw (incorrect)

1.Kb7 attacks knight and pawn. It was thought that the game is drawn if White wins Pc7, and as such the author didn't consider 1.-Na5+, 1.-Nd8+ which de facto win for Black (reported by Martin Minski in EG, April 2015). The beautiful intended solution was 1.-Rf7 2.K:c7 Bg2+ 3.Kc5 Rf5+ 4.Kc4/Kd4 Rf4+ 5.Kc5 R:g4 6.Rh4 Re4 7.Rg4 Bf3 8.Rf4 Bh1 9.Rh4 Bg2 10.Rg4 Kb3 11.Rg3+ draws

Now I will first talk a bit about the history of endgames and then show some examples of tablebase knowledge being used in endgame studies.

As you will know, the term "endgame study" was coined by the 1851 book by Kling & Horwitz. I quickly talked about the history of endgame studies in January 2018.

Much more could be said, obviously, and an outstanding figure in the early 20th century was Nikolay Grigoriev, who excessively explored pawn endgames (something that always remained en vogue, but he and later Mikhail Zinar almost exclusively discovered that terrain). Alexey Troitzky explored the endgame of two knights against one pawn exhaustively, creating the "Troitzky line", a pawn line spanning black pawns on a5, b6, c5, d4, e4, f5, g6, h5. This shows where two knights win if the single pawn is blocked there, and of course if the pawn is further back the knights also will win. This is because zugzwang is used to create a mating net, but the lone king will not be checkmated if the pawn hasn't enough useless moves.

The entire endgame theory there (in terms of what is the very best move each time) is difficult to understand, but the win is easy to practically execute, as it boils down to bringing the king to a corner with king and knight, then using the other knight also to checkmate it.

One fascinating thing about endgame theory is that it exists also for some crowded positions that aren't basic endgames, often because those or similar ones happened in games. Recently we saw one such example in Carlsen's sixth game against Nepomniachtchi when 17.-gxf6 was played because an endgame similar to the one after 17.-Qxf6 18.Qxf6 gxf6 had been in a world championship game of Carlsen against Karjakin, their first one in 2016. The first two replayable entries, found on page 52 and 53 of the book "Schachstudien der Weltmeister" by Karpov and Gik, demonstrate such pawn endgame theory. The "Magician from Riga" had a specific pawn formation in a game against Korchnoi, causing numerous grandmasters to analyze the position in the diagram below and reach a conclusion on how play should have went, creating a winning plan that was apparently unknown to two other players 17 years later.

Mikhail Tal - Viktor Korchnoi, Moscow 1968 (Candidates, semifinal). White to move only drew after 1.h3 Kf6 2.Kf4 e5+, etc.

Recently more relevant became the following position:

Black to move. Mamedjarov lost against Firouzja in 2021, but Alapin drew against Teichmann in 1908

Besides the practical endgame theory, there also is the more theoretical endgame theory, which can be used to debunk endgame studies. For example, He Sophie Yifeng on 19 January 2022 composed a small endgame study. Looking for predecessors, your author found an old Hildebrand study which she cooked immediately with tablebases. A "cook" is the term for an incorrectness. We reproduce the study and cook (this and Sophie's study are replayable below):

Alexander Hildebrand, Eskilstuna Kuriren 1957. White to move and win (cooked)

1.Nd5+ K:e7 2.N:c8+ Kd8 3.Nd6 leaves the rook in dire straits, two main variations follow:

3.-Re7 4.Ba5+ wins; 3.-Rg3 4.Ba5+ Ke7 5.Nf5+ wins

This is apparently forced, but 1.-Ke6!! draws, as the endgame of KBNN-KR is drawn. The rook will always attack the bishop, trying to leave White with KNN-K which is a draw. That the endgame is a general draw seemingly wasn't known in Hildebrand's time, but could likely have been analyzed, as the drawing idea isn't one that is beyond human comprehension.

What certainly is beyond the comprehension of some people is that Mario Garcia, I think, analyzed all endgame studies at the time with endgame tablebases (I think they had up to five pieces at the time) and checked if they were correct or not. Something similar yet has to be done with newer generations of tablebases and the endgame studies that came to exist since then.

While Emil Vlask is the computer expert of EG (although to be fair all editors are computer experts to one degree or another), Jaroslav Polek does work with endgame tablebases as well, his genuine efforts to correct and improve old endgame studies aren't restricted to tablebase testable studies, but a lot would be impossible without.

So to close this article, which is a bit shorter than usual but this is partially counterweighted with the appendix below, I want to demonstrate two examples of the work of my fellow EG writers, both taken from the October 2021 issue where also the tablebase endgame at the beginning of the article was found.

Both had investigated 8-piece endgames, Emil found a fatal flaw in a fortress by Klyatskin, which could have been found by human analysis long ago as well. The full study and winning way is replayable below.

M. Kliatskin, Shakhmaty v SSSR 1925 (2nd semester). White to move and draw (end of study, cooked)

That both 3.Rc3 and 3.Rc1 end in the same fortress is not the big issue here, but rather the big issue is that the fortress after the intended 3.Rc1 Qd3+ 4.Ka1 Qc2 5.Rg1 (or any other sane move on the first rank) does not draw. I believe I had seen the position long ago before, and believed the author, but I am not fully certain of that. The easy winning idea is bKf2 (wanting to go to g2), Qd2. It seems that Paul Wiereyn, whom I quickly introduced in an article a few months ago as one of the computer programmers that are well-known in the specialized chess composition "scene", found the winning manoeuver already in February of 2021.

I use both the software and the chess composer Fritz regularly, and Jaroslav had found an idea that leads to of one of the ending ideas in the endgame studies of the Czechoslovakian master, funnily number 63636 in the database of Harold van der Heijden. The "humanly solvable" form is reproduced below, the longer version is replayable, taken from his own file

Jaroslav Polek, after J. Fritz 1954. White to move and draw

The "Solving Championship of the Czech Republic" was held in Prague in August 2021, and this study was presented as one of the studies to solve. As such, I invite readers to try their hand on solving, prior to looking at the solution at the replayable studies.

Of course, this article can't cover much of how endgame theory in endgame studies is created or applied, how it always develops, but at the end of this article, an appendix must be made, the long following list, to show the current status of endgame theory in general. It might be a good reference, but can't replace individual calculations of endgames. As we saw with Alapin's play, precise knowledge is necessary of when pieces can be exchanged.

Pawnless endgames:

3 pieces:

4 pieces (3v1):

4 pieces (2v2):

5 pieces (4v1):

5 pieces (3v2):

6 pieces (3v3):

6 pieces (4v2):

7 pieces:

Positions with pawns:

depend on details so no general rules can be given, apart from a minor piece up usually being enough material to win. There are exceptions such as KBP-K being drawn if the pawn is on a rook file and the bishop doesn't control the promotion square. KQ-KP is a draw with a pawn on a2 or c2 (or mirrored) supported by his king, unless the attacking king is close enough. This is due to stalemates in the corner that prevent the attacker from bringing his king closer. KQP-KQ and KQPP-KQ are highly dependent on where the pawns and pieces are, with both having winning potential. KRPP-KR is generally won unless the pawns are on the f- and h-file. Generally, positions with pawns have a higher probability of being won even with the 50 moves rule in effect, whereas pawnless positions might be theoretically won but practically drawn due to that rule.

Read the rest here:
Study of the Month: Endgame Studies, Endgame Theory - Chessbase News

Press release by FIDE

The Commission for Womens Chess is truly grateful to the FIDE President Mr Arkady Dvorkovich, the FIDE Council and the Management for their decision to have declared 2022 the Year of the Woman in Chess.

The Accelerated Dragon - a sharp weapon against 1.e4

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6! leads to the so-called "Accelerated Dragon Defense". On this DVD the Russian grandmaster and top women player Nadezhda Kosintseva reveals the secrets of her favourite opening.

This is our chance to take a leap forward in our mission of forming gender equity policies, practices and programs. In recent years, we have achieved a number of long-lasting strategic goals, from encouraging women to actively participate in all aspects of chess life by offering them free educational seminars to implementing gender quotas for various official positions and assignments.

While our colleagues have worked tirelessly to provide better conditions for top female players and to greatly increase the prize funds, our commission has focused on connecting, inspiring and educating female players of all backgrounds from around the world. Last year we organised The Queens' Festival 2021, a series of continental and global tournaments with over 460 participants from 82 countries. Many thousands more followed the side events featuring female role model guests and presenters on FIDE social media.

Creating a strong women chess community is very important for us to continue pursuing our goals and representing the interests of women in chess.

To follow in this spirit, throughout this Year of Woman in Chess, we are planning the following events and collaborations to make this an epic year for women:

There are also other plans for the Year of the Woman in Chess.

We would also like to hear and promote your initiatives and ideas. Please email us your stories, suggestions and pictures to women@fide.com, and share your initiatives online using the hashtag #womeninchess.

With your help and support, we can make this an outstanding and game-changer year!

Eva RepkovaChair of FIDE Womens Commission

How to play the Sicilian Defence!

The continuous stream of new ideas in the Sicilian makes 1..c5 the most popular answer to 1.e4. On this DVD I do give an introduction to the most important Sicilian systems.

Go here to see the original:
FIDE declares 2022 the year of the woman in chess - Chessbase News

Chess.com's January Coach of the Month is Charlie Rosado, better known online as JapaneseTutor! Charlie is a well-known chess streamer, and one of the key characters of the Tournament Arc series.

What some people might not know is that JapaneseTutor is a formidable coach who is accepting new students. A dedicated trainer with nothing but glowing reviews from his students, Charlie is ready to help you achieve your chess goals faster!

Readers seeking private instruction can contact Charlie Rosado via his Chess.com profile and can find other skilled coaches at Chess.com/coaches.

At what age were you introduced to chess, and who introduced you?

When I was around 16 years old, in High School, people used to play chess during lunch in the cafeteria. I was not very interested at first, but as time went by, the game drew my attention. I learned by watching and later playing. One of the coaches of the chess club asked me If I wanted to join and by then it seemed like a no-brainer. Interestingly enough his name was Mr. Rosado, and although we share the same last name (and same birthday) we are not related.

What is your first vivid memory from chess?

Our coach would not let us compete in any tournaments until we completed a certain amount of challenges (tactics and puzzles). After two or three months in the club, I was finally able to participate in my first competition. I lost my first three matches of four. I remember getting destroyed by a kid who could have not been older than six or seven. He beat me while munching on his animal crackers and sipping on Capri-sun.

Despite that, I did win my fourth match and that episode is not only a vivid memory, but I think it was also a turning point since it was then that I first remember thinking that I could actually do it. I could, in fact, play and maybe even be really good at it.

Which coaches were helpful to you in your chess career, and what was the most useful knowledge they imparted to you?

My first coach, although not the strongest, was important to me because he introduced me to many different tactics. He was also a driving energy, encouraging us to always do better. I also started using CT Art (an old chess tactics software) thanks to him and I am pretty sure that my chess journey would have been different without him.

Four years ago, I learned that GM Leonid Yudasin (ex-world champion candidate) was available for coaching on the Marshall Chess Club website. I worked with him for about six months. Playing with such a strong player changed my tactics and my approach to the game in general, and he really helped me to develop a better strategic understanding of the game. He definitely made me a better and more competitive player. One thing that he mentioned that I remember clearly even to this day, is that it doesn't matter what pieces come off the board. What matters is what pieces stay and what they're doing.

Which game do you consider your "Magnus Opus?"

I really like this game I played against GM Roeland Pruijssers. Even though I made a few mistakes and I felt like I had a worse position, I kept fighting on and found some counterplay through tenacious play.

This was the first time that I actually felt confident that I could come back from a worse positionand I did. Ever since that game, I always remind myself to keep playing and trying to find the best moves, even when I'm in a worse position.

How would you describe your approach to chess coaching?

Every potential student has different goals they want to achieve. It's important that I clearly understand them. Then I look at a couple hundred of their games, trying to zero in on all their strengths and weaknesses, and, more importantly, on how they think about chess and their approach to the game.

With that data, I can better cater to my student and create a plan that ultimately enhances their strengths while fixing their weaknesses. I feel all of this is better and more easily achieved if the student is having fun during the process, so I try to also create an environment that is structured but relaxed; maybe not fully conventional, but effective and fun.

What do you consider your responsibility as a coach and which responsibilities fall on your student?

I, as the coach, need to know my students and the way they play, even better than they know themselves. I create comprehensive lesson plans, and schedule steps ahead of time to maintain a good, productive rhythm.

I expect my students to do their homework, be consistent with puzzles, and make sure they are not rushing through games, but instead learning from them and analyzing them.

Our shared responsibility is communication. Communication is instrumental to predicting or fixing anything that might affect their learning.

What is a piece of advice that you give your students that you think more chess players could benefit from?

Mindset is the most important thing you have.

I often tell my students that it doesn't matter what their opponent's rating is, how famous they are, how well they did during the tournament. You both are sitting at the same table; you both see the same board; you both have the same pieces. If they make a mistake it is up to their opponent to punish themthey do not need to punish themselves. Just play the game.

What is your favorite teaching game that users might not have seen?

Kasparov's Immortal game is definitely my favorite teaching game. It really highlights how to think properly and demonstrates how to make your pieces work together. It also shows the importance of finding what is actually wrong with your opponent's position and the importance of deep calculation.

What is the puzzle you give students that tells you the most about how they think?

I don't really have one single puzzle that I use to gauge a students' abilities but I ask them what their approach is to chess and ask about their moves in their most recent games. I can usually tell how a student thinks by going over their games. I usually find that to be more fruitful.

However, I do like to show a few students one particular position and ask them how they would proceed.

The solution is actually very straightforward but a lot of people look for moves with their pieces instead of looking for an attack with the "least obvious" piece. The idea is 1.g4 followed by g5, opening up the kingside. Chess is a game of perfect information and we can see that White has an attack. But how do we get in? This "puzzle" really reveals how fast they give up on positions or how tenacious they are in trying to find a way in.

Do you prefer to teach online or offline? What do you think is different about teaching online?

I was an offline teacher until the pandemic hit. I then switched to online teaching. One thing I miss from offline, in-person teaching, is the body language; the surprised expression when the student understands something for the first time, or their first "a-ha" moment.

Teaching online has the huge advantage of having all the information that I need at my fingertips. For the longest time I preferred teaching offline, but I believe that I really started thriving as an online teacher. There's a certain set of skills that you need for online teaching. Understanding the students' needs while teaching online classes, where I wasn't able to see them or directly communicate with them, was a huge stepping stone for me as an instructor. However, I do feel like I can truly understand my students' needs now and I really enjoy the benefits of online lessons.

What do you consider the most valuable training tool that the internet provides?

Honestly, I think Chess.com's analysis board and databases of games/openings/lessons are amazing. I utilize them for every single one of my lessons. It's nice to have all that information at your fingertips.

Which under-appreciated chess book should every chess player read?

For anyone struggling with openings I recommend Christof Sielecki's Keep it Simple series for 1.e4 or 1.d4. I think that anyone in the 1000-1900 range could really benefit from these books. It's a super solid material that will get you out of the opening in a good position so you can just play chess.

For students who are already doing fine with the opening, I recommend Daniel Gormallys Mating the Castled King.

Prior Coaches of the Month:

Originally posted here:
Coach Of The Month: Charlie Rosado - Chess.com