Saturday, August 31, 2019

Summer Chess Camp and Upcoming Events in Rochester



Community Chess Club Championship - 5 Rounds: Oct. 2nd, 9th, 16th, 23rd & 30th, 2019
Eligibility: Community Chess Club members must have played a minimum of 10 games since Oct. 31st, 2018 on separate Wednesday nights.  Join the club today!  Complete your 10-game minimum!
We will have rated games available for players unable to participate in the Club Championship.

Sunday, July 7, 2019

How to Get Better at Chess - The Path from Beginner to Master and Beyond (Part 1)


In the diagram above, you're playing black and it's your turn. Take a look at the position for a bit and then come up with a plan for your next few moves. Take as much or as little time as you think you need.



My ambitious goal in this new series of posts is to outline a general path for how one could go from beginner to master. I'll draw from my own chess upbringing along with some old-school classical wisdom.

First, a couple things:
  1. It's really hard to "master" chess - I certainly don't consider myself to have mastered it, and even the best grandmasters in the world aren't anywhere close to perfect. In fact, believe it or not, even Stockfish doesn't know all the answers! (but ok, AlphaZero might)
  2. There are no shortcuts! As with anything else, improving in chess takes time, hard work and lots of practice.
Lastly but most importantly, I just want to remind you that it is absolutely possible to enjoy chess as a hobby without wanting to devote time, money and energy to improving. I learned the rules when I was around five or six years old but had no desire to get a rating or take lessons until I was twelve. Today, I have no regrets about that.


Starting out: Beginner level

So, you've recently learned the rules and basic checkmates, perhaps a couple of simple openings too. What next? How to improve from there?

In my opinion, there are numerous ways for a beginner to improve that cost little or no money and do not require a large time investment:

  • Come to your local chess center or club and play a few casual games against players who are better than you. Talk to them and ask how they come up with their moves.
  • Play in a small local tournament if you want to get a feel for what competitive chess is like. Find a friend who's higher rated than you and ask them if they could analyze your games with you - in my experience, most chess players are quite friendly and would be happy to help.
  • Set up a free account on a site like lichess.org or chess.com and do some tactics puzzles - even consistently doing just five a day will go a long way after a couple months. Be familiar with the most common tactical patterns:
    • Forks/double attacks
    • Skewers and pins
    • Back rank tactics
    • Discovered attack, discovered check, and double check
    • Decoy/Deflection
    • Overloading and removing the defender
  • Find a good tactics puzzle book or any basic strategy book - the ones that I grew up with and highly recommend are Fred Reinfeld's "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations" and Irving Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move" - both are available on Amazon for under $15. Play through them with a physical board in front of you.
  • Practice some basic endgame drills against people at your local club who know them:
    • K+P vs K
    • R+P vs R
    • Q vs P, etc - I made a separate post here about this kind of knowledge

Something else I would strongly advise is to stay away from engines like Stockfish, Houdini, Fritz, Komodo etc. You don't need them right now, and unless you know how to use them properly they will do more harm than good. Later on I'll make a post about how I use engines and how they are designed to work.



Now, if I had to pick just one of my bullet points to be the most important for beginners to learn, then in a heartbeat I'd pick tactics. Why? I'll come back to the diagram I showed you at the top to illustrate:


This position was black to move, and I asked you to come up with a plan. But in reality, it was a trick question (sorry). Whatever plan you came up with, it doesn't matter, because black can actually win a whole piece by force here.

After 1. ... d5 2.exd5 exd5, white's bishop on c4 is attacked. After it moves, say 3.Bb5, then 3. ... d4 is a winning pawn fork - white loses either the bishop on e3 or the knight on c3.

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that concrete tactics (especially any tactics involving an exposed king) will always be the most important factor on the chessboard and trump standard positional considerations.

For example, you could have looked at the position and said, "Black isn't castled and needs to develop his minor pieces, so my plan is 0-0 and Bd7 to complete development", or maybe you reject the idea of d6-d5 because "you shouldn't open the center when you haven't castled yet". All of that is true, but in this case it assumes secondary importance because you can win a piece.

If you quickly saw the tactic on your own, then that's good! If not, then you probably could use some tactics training, because the end goal is to be able to find those shots even when you're not actively looking for them. After you practice enough basic puzzles like that, your brain will eventually be able to automatically recognize those patterns without any effort. Experienced players like myself can instantly see things like that ...d5-d4 fork without even thinking.

If chess were a language, then tactics would be the alphabet. Strong players use the same basic tactical patterns in different combinations as a tool to help carry out their own plans and to stop their opponent's plans. The good news for beginners is that those patterns are actually really easy to learn! Just be consistent about practicing and going through puzzles until it becomes second nature.

Monday, May 27, 2019

My Games from the New York State Open

The 27th New York State Open was held in Lake George from 5/17-5/19. Despite my typically suspect play, I managed to tie for first, so let's have a look at the games.

In round 1 I played a pretty low-quality game but was able to win a drawn major piece endgame against an 1800 player.



My 11.h3?! squandered any hopes of an advantage with white, and after 19. ... Qa8 the game was completely even and should have ended in a draw. The biggest mistake black made was actually trading rooks, because it severely limited his chances for counterplay - this is a good rule of thumb to remember by the way: the side with an outside passed pawn almost always wants trades; the defending side should avoid trades. This is especially true in major piece endgames.


In the second round, I got a dream position out of the opening with black against an expert:

\


In round 3 I had to grind down a resilient class-A player. Compared to my first round, this was actually a high-quality game where I was satisfied with the way I played.




In round 4 I played a young expert, and made a disastrous blunder in the middlegame after following through with a bad plan.



Suspicious opening choice, but the reason I lost that one was the strong desire to avoid white's idea of trading pieces with Nd5, so much so that I was willing to put my rook on the horrible c5 square, and I completely overlooked 26.Bd8

In my defense, that same kid also drew the other master in the tournament the following round, so I didn't beat myself up too badly. In any case, I made things a little better by getting a fast win against another expert in the last round.



My next tournament probably won't be for a while, so until next time!

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

My Games from the Maryland Open

Over the weekend I played in the 65th Maryland Open in Rockville, MD. The theme for me this tournament was opening disasters! In all three of my black games I misplayed the opening, and as usual there were plenty of adventures...

I played in the two-day schedule, where the first two rounds were G/45+30. In round one I got black against GM Alexander Fishbein, who I've played a few times before. I've recently started learning the Classical Sicilian, a new opening for me, and was happy to get a chance to try it out against a good player. We had a long but instructive struggle, where both of us made several mistakes.



Almost 100 moves! I think I've only had two tournament games against GMs that went over 100 moves - one where I was pushing for a win in a rook and pawn ending against Shabalov (but drew) and a 133 move draw against Vladimir Belous where I had to defend RB vs RN+P.

To summarize this game:
  • I went wrong early in the opening with 14. ... Rac8?!, rather than the correct 14.Rfc8!
  • White returned the favor with 16.b4?!, when instead 16.Nb5! would have exploited the weakness of Rac8 by pressuring the weak a7 pawn and giving white time to play b3-c4.
  • After the exchange of opening inaccuracies, the game was about equal, but I could have played for an advantage with 20. ... f5! rather than 20. ... Nd7?!, which only led to equality.
  • Fishbein outplayed me in the open middlegame after move 25, and got a near-winning position by move 35, but missed multiple chances to finish me off and allowed me to fight hard for a draw in the rook and pawn endgame.
We finished about 15 minutes before the next round started, so I had no time for lunch, but thankfully my next game was not quite as strenuous.



A relatively smooth win against a lower-rated player. I only made one bad decision with 11.Bxc6?! after which I had no advantage out of the opening. However, my opponent later failed to take the opportunity to correctly set up his hanging pawns with 17. ... c5!, and instead chose 17. ... Rfe8?!, allowing my knight on a4 to come back into the game from c5 to d3. He ultimately tried to get activity with the speculative 18. ... Nh5!? and 19. ... f5 idea but it backfired horribly as his own king proved to be weaker.



In round 3 we switched to the long time control of 40/90 SD 30 + 30 sec/move. This game was quite a scare for me, as my careless opening play against an expert quickly landed me in a disastrous position.



Well, my opening decision of 5. ... d6?! was objectively not the best, but certainly 6. ... e6!?, going into a Hedgehog with my knight already on c6 was pushing my luck (6. ... g6 was a better choice there). Once I realized those earlier mistakes, 9. ... h5?! was a gross overreaction (9. ... Bd7 and just putting up with white's Nd5 was relatively better), and of course 19. ... g5? was just awful.

This game is a good example of how too much knowledge can hurt you in chess! I have a lot of experience in Sicilian and English Hedgehogs, so I know how dangerous white's attack can get if black plays too passively. I certainly know how dangerous Nc3-d5 can be, especially if my king is still in the center. In this particular game though, the Nd5 lunge, although a good move for white, would not have been winning, and I incorrectly just assumed it would be without analyzing concretely. It would have been far better to allow Nd5 than to destroy my position with a move like 9. ... h5?!, embarking on the Nc6-e5-d7 maneuver at all costs.


In round 4 I had white against the young up-and-coming expert Alex Chen - I had done a bit of research on him and seen that his rating had been going up quickly and I think he had drawn a GM last year, so he was certainly dangerous. Therefore, I played 1.e4 and headed for the sharpest Sicilian possible...

...just kidding. I did play 1.e4, but quickly steered into an endgame where I outplayed my less-experienced opponent.



By the way, that 9.e5!? idea is not mine, I think credit should go to Vladimir Onischuk, who was the first GM to play it in 2014. He's won every single game with it, including three against strong GMs, so it's clearly not so bad!

Even though I didn't get to use that tricky sideline, my strategy of going to the endgame worked well - on moves 17-20 my opponent clearly didn't know what to do, and spent a lot of time on strange moves like Rd7 and then Rc7. Just one bad decision with Nd5-b4-d3 was enough to land him in trouble, and once I won the e5 pawn and invaded with my rook to the 7th it was all over.


In the last round I drew a master with black - I was actually lucky to get this draw too after misplaying the opening again.



So definitely my 10th and 11th moves weren't very good - 10. ... b5! instead of 10. ... Bb7 would have been a more active way to continue. I thought I could just develop naturally and play for ...c5 and be fine, but instead I just got a passive position and had to defend for the rest of the game. Probably I should study that opening line a bit more before playing it again, or find something sharper to play with black against lower-rated players!

Anyway, my next tournament is probably the New York State Open in a couple of weeks - I'll make another post about my games from that tournament too. After that, get ready for my simul on May 22! I'm planning to crush you all :)

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

How's Your Theoretical Endgame Knowledge?

In the endgame, "theoretical" knowledge refers to the fundamental building blocks, including everything from mating with a queen to the Philidor position in R+P endings to defending R+B vs R. These are the endgames that you should know by heart.

Here, I'm providing you with a master list of all the theoretical knowledge that I know of, split up by what I think are appropriate rating categories. See how many of the bullet points you know and where your endgame skills are! There are a few puzzles at the end too, going from easy to hard.

Basic: Beginner up to 1200
  • Two rook checkmate
  • Queen checkmate
  • Single rook checkmate
  • K+P ending, basic opposition
  • K+P ending, rule of the square
  • K vs. K + rook pawn
  • K + two pawns vs. King, one file separation
  • Q vs. pawn on the seventh
Intermediate: 1200 to 1600
  • K + g&h pawns vs. king
  • K+P endings, intermediate opposition and triangulation techniques
  • K+P endings, outside passed pawns and "Bahr's rule"
  • K+P endings, winning with an active king (basic)
  • K+P endings, shouldering (basic)
  • Opposite colored bishops, file separation of passed pawns
  • Rook vs. pawn
  • Rook vs. two connected passed pawns
  • R+P vs. R, Lucena position
  • R+P vs. R, Philidor position
  • R+P vs. R, Vancura position
  • R+P vs. R, the frontal attack
  • R+P endings, the umbrella technique
  • Q vs. B mate
Moderate Advanced: 1600 to 2000
  • Two bishop checkmate
  • Bishop & Knight checkmate
  • K+P endings, winning with an active king (advanced)
  • K+P endings, shouldering (advanced)
  • K+P endings, distant opposition and outflanking
  • K+P endings, Reti's study
  • Defending Knight vs. rook pawn
  • Rook vs. Knight
  • Rook vs. Bishop, critical positions
  • N+P vs. knight, critical positions
  • B+P vs. bishop, critical positions (i.e. "Centurini" Position)
  • B+P vs. knight
  • R+P vs. R, cutting off along the rank
  • R+P vs. R, short side/long side
  • R+P vs. R, queening a rook pawn
  • R+ f and h-pawn vs. R
  • R and 4 vs. R and 3 (same side)
  • Q vs. R, Philidor position and other fundamentals
  • Fortresses in Q vs. R+P
  • Q vs. N mate
Side note - getting Q vs. N is highly unusual, but I actually got it once against an expert several years ago, and can confirm that it's not that easy to do in really bad time pressure (I successfully converted it).

Advanced: 2000 and up
  • Two knights vs. pawn checkmate
  • Two bishops vs. knight
  • Rook and bishop vs. rook, Philidor position
  • Rook and bishop vs. rook, general defense
  • Rook and knight vs. rook, critical positions
  • Q vs. R, general
  • Q vs. R+P, breaking fortresses (advanced)
  • Q+P vs. Q, fundamentals
Now here are the puzzles:

1 - Rating level: 800
White to move - win or draw?

2 - Rating level: 1000
Black to move - win or draw?

3 - Rating level: 1200
White to move - win or draw?

4 - Rating level: 1400
Does white win or draw?

5 - Rating level: 1600
White to move - can he draw?

6 - Rating level: 1800
White to move - win or draw?

7 - Rating level: 1950
White to move - win or draw?

8 - Rating level: 2100
Black to move - win or draw?

9 - Rating level: 2250
White to move - win or draw?

10 - Rating level: 2400
Black to move - win or draw?

11 - Rating level: 3600
I just have this one here for fun, because it's way over everybody's head. It is the longest possible win in the 7-piece tablebase, where black loses by force with perfect play in 297 moves! It's too difficult even for beasts like Stockfish.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

My Games from the 1st Colonial Open!

Over the weekend I played in the inaugural Colonial Open, held in Sterling, VA. Although I didn't play particularly great, my games were definitely full of adventures...


In the first round I only managed a draw against a strong and young expert, but it was mostly because I goofed in the ending and let him completely equalize the game.



OK, so I wasn't too happy about that, but I felt a bit better after seeing GM Bryan Smith on board one actually lose to a different high-2100 kid (I was the #2 seed behind Smith).


The second round went much better for me; I got to experiment with a new opening, and was able to generate a strong attack in an opposite-sides castling middlegame to win against another expert.



White's biggest mistake that game was probably 19.axb4?!, opening up the a-file for my rook. He still could have played on with 23.Rxd8+ instead of 23.Rh5?, but even then black would have had a much more pleasant position with free pressure against the exposed white king.



In the third round I got to repeat the same line I used in round 1, and my opponent evidently wasn't too familiar with the endgame and quickly blundered the exchange. However, at a critical moment, I played one careless passive move which was enough to let black get back in the game with drawing chances. I ultimately gave back the exchange and we got a tense rook and pawn endgame where at one point we could have seen the highly unusual finish of king and three pawns vs. king and rook! However, after all the adventures, things petered out to a draw.



It is hard to believe that just one inaccurate move 32.Rc1? was enough to blow white's winning position, but sometimes that's just how it is. No matter how good your position is, you need to be accurate right up until the very end. I think I relaxed too early and my opponent played well to get his queenside pawns rolling and draw the tricky rook and pawn ending.


Round four was my best of the tournament - I won a smooth game against an FM where I felt like I was in control the whole time.



The critical moment of the game was right after white's clumsy-looking 17.Qh3!?, when I correctly felt I needed to open the position with 17. ... d5!, after which I could start dictating the play. This strategy worked perfectly, because my opponent quickly erred with the passive 22.Be1?, allowing me to get a powerful initiative which eventually proved decisive.


Going into the last round I was tied for first with 3/4, along with I think three or four other players, Bryan Smith included. I got paired with white against an IM who also had 3/4 after giving up two draws earlier in the tournament.

In this game, I quickly got a dangerous attack after a relatively mellow opening, but my opponent found a very original defensive idea and we ultimately got an unclear ending where I had queen and two pawns vs. three minors! However, the game ended after I prematurely offered a draw because I had completely misevaluated a critical ending from afar.



I completely misjudged the rook vs. two minors endgame - I got scared that I was in trouble there, and didn't see any other options for me after 35. ... Ra3, so I offered the draw after my 35th move. However, in reality that ending was nothing to fear - white's king can easily deal with the d-pawn while black is tied up to stopping both of my passers on the a- and h-files. That was definitely a case of hasty evaluation perhaps combined with some fatigue.


With 3.5/5 I ended up tied for second place. The strong master Isaac Chiu (2308) won clear first with 4/5 after defeating Bryan Smith in the last round.

Monday, April 8, 2019

My Game Against Toby Rizzo

Today is a special occasion - we get to analyze one of my greatest losses in recent memory.

In the second round of the Rochester Monday Night League, I lost to Toby Rizzo (1889), in what I think could rightly be considered the best game of his life so far, and perhaps the most instructive loss of mine so far. Let's see how it happened.




I think we need to turn the clock back to January of 2018 to find the last game I lost to an under-2000 player, when I lost to John Manning with black by playing 3. ... Bd6?! against the Ruy Lopez :)

So, what takeaways can we make from this game?

First of all, it should be abundantly clear that Toby is a very dangerous player when handling the initiative. He surprised me in the opening with 8.dxe5!, taking advantage of my slow and weakening 7. ... b6?!, and although he missed 10.Bxf7+!, which would have won on the spot, he played absolutely flawlessly from move 25 up until the end of the game, perfectly executing his attack and taking full advantage of my mistakes.

Secondly, for whatever reason my sense of danger was not sufficiently active this game. In particular, it is alarming that I even allowed 10.Bxf7+ in the opening, but I also overlooked the extremely important 27.h4! idea and failed to take two chances to escape into an inferior, but possibly still defendable endgame on moves 28 and 30 - and I knowingly rejected those chances too, because I thought white's attack wouldn't be so strong. That misjudgement cost me the game.

However, I would say the most critical moment and my biggest mistake of all was on move 22 when I played Nxg3??, an absolutely atrocious positional decision. I think my reason for making that blunder was that I had half-seriously looked at the better alternative 22. ... Bb7 23.Rc7 Nec5!, but had seen the possible tactics with 24.Nxe5? (which didn't work) and just wanted a simple option to grab the bishop pair. In hindsight, I definitely should have spent more time on that move as it was the pivotal turning point of the game.

You don't win or lose games because of your rating! You win or lose because of the mistakes that you or your opponents make. Those upsets can and do happen, just as David Phelps (2078) defeated GM Sergei Kudrin or I won against the almost 2700-rated GM Kamil Dragun (2678) last year. In both of those games, the higher rated player made some serious mistakes and the lower rated player successfully took advantage of them. My game against Toby is no exception to that rule.

Congrats to Toby on winning an excellent game; I will definitely have to be much more careful against him in the future!

Sunday, March 31, 2019

My Best Games: Attacking the King!

Although I'll admit my preferred style is to grind opponents down in an endgame, if given the opportunity, I won't back away from launching a good attack against your king! Here are three memorable examples where I did just that to ensure a quick victory.

Example 1: Piece sacrifice to remove pawn shelter

This was a game I played as an expert at a weekend tournament here at the chess center. In the opening I had sacrificed a pawn but in return made it very difficult for my opponent to develop his queenside. I used my extra piece activity to launch an attack against the king, who lacked defense from the dormant rook and bishop on the queenside.




Example 2: Using pawns to provoke weaknesses

In this more recent game, I first throw a pawn into the enemy camp to cause some disruption before sacrificing a piece to open up lines.



Example 3: Pushing the h-pawn to create a lock on the enemy king

When the king has castled into a fianchetto formation that lacks that all-important fianchetto bishop, there is always the potential to create a "lock" on the king by advancing the rook pawn. Here we see that at work: after my pawn gets to h3 white's king is locked down and constantly faces getting mated on g2.

Solutions to March Puzzles Posted

The solutions to the March puzzles have been posted in the comments section.

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

The Vast Range of Chess Players

Is one mile a long distance to you? Perhaps, but it's certainly much shorter than 1,000 miles, the distance from Boston to Chicago. Even longer is 7,500 miles, the distance from Hong Kong to LA. It's about 25,000 miles to go around the circumference of the earth, and about 240,000 miles to get to the moon. Are those distances big?

What about 95 million miles, the distance from Earth to the Sun? Or 4.5 billion miles, the distance from the Sun to Pluto? It's already difficult to even imagine how big those distances are, yet compared to the width of the entire Milky Way galaxy we've barely gotten started. That length is about 100,000 light years, and 1 light year equals about 6 trillion miles.


The Milky Way is huge but is still nothing compared to the scale of the whole universe.


Now let's come back to Earth and talk about chess.

What does "really good" at chess mean to you? Perhaps for you it means being able to play a whole game without a major blunder, or maybe to be able to play king and pawn endgames perfectly or maybe to be able to quickly calculate basic tactics 2-3 moves ahead.

Well, maybe this will somewhat shatter your perspective. I would venture to guess that although people know "GM" is a lot better than "expert", not everybody really recognizes just how astronomically huge the difference in skill is between groups like "club player", "expert", "master", "International Master", and "Grandmaster".


What a typical playing hall of a large tournament looks like.


After you've played in enough brutally competitive tournaments and lost to enough GMs (and won some too), you come to realize what "really good" actually means in chess. It's quite a humbling experience.

So I'll break things down into rating groups and do my best to convey just how much better a GM is than a club player or a master. 


Rating: 2650-2750+
Carlsen-Caruana in their World Championship match, November 2018.
Top GMs are really really good. Take Carlsen, Caruana, Nakamura or any other hyper-elite player. These people basically play and study chess for a living. In the weeks leading up to and during a big tournament or match, the world's best easily can spend over 40 hours a week on chess, and you can be sure they have perfected their training schedule to maximize efficiency.

You don't get to be top 10 or even top 100 in the world by having chess as a mere side hobby. These people work hard and perhaps most importantly, work smart. They figure out what weaknesses they need to fix and then diligently work on improving them.

Rating: 2550-2650:
Sergey Erenburg, seen here giving a simultaneous exhibition, might be a "typical" GM to fall into this category. With a USCF rating of around 2660, he's a very strong player, but not as strong as Carlsen or Caruana.
"Average" GMs are still really good, but they're not quite as good as the very best. No doubt some of them have real jobs and don't have time to spend 40+ hours a week on chess, but you can also find plenty of GM coaches who teach and write the occasional book for a living (IMs do this too).

Now get this: there are only about 1500 people in the entire world who fall into the above two categories - that's roughly 0.1-0.3% of all chess players.

Rating: 2400-2550:
Daniel Rensch (USCF ~2500) is a well-known American International Master.
In the grand scheme of things, International Masters (IMs) are good, but compared to the average GM they're real underdogs and many would be almost no match for a very strong GM (2700+). There are plenty of exceptions of course, but as a general rule, GMs tend to beat IMs pretty handily.

If you're curious, I probably fit best into this category, as my current USCF rating in the 2450-2500 range is probably too high for the next group down; however, so far I do not have an official IM or GM title.

Rating: 2200-2400:
The strongest players in scholastic tournaments are usually talented masters who are still quickly advancing in strength.
This group includes FMs and NMs (using the USCF rating system now). Players here will still totally dominate the average club player, but can occasionally punch upwards and knock out an IM or GM. I'll put it this way: GMs sometimes lose to players under 2400, rarely lose to players under 2200, and almost never lose to players under 2000.

However, things can go both ways too. It's highly unusual but certainly not unheard of for people even in the 1800-1900 category to upset a master (I most recently lost a game to an under-2000 rated player in January of 2018).

This can be an exciting rating range to be in. The jump from 2200 to 2400 is different from the jump between 2000 and 2200. Likewise, making it from 2200 to 2400 by itself does little to prepare you for going from 2400 to 2600, which is truly a giant leap.

Rating: 2000-2200 (USCF System):
At most chess centers around the US, the strongest players around are usually experts (2000+).
Today in the US, a rating of 2000 corresponds to about the 97th percentile. So it's a pretty big accomplishment to be an expert - fewer than 1 in 20 people ever get there. But even so, most experts pale in comparison to even FMs and IMs, who themselves are heavily outmatched by GMs. A 2100 beating a 2600? Practically unheard of, although it has happened. To be clear, a veteran GM in good form would completely trounce an expert in a 20 game match by an obscene margin (19-1 or 20-0) - it would barely even look like a contest.

Rating: 1600-2000:
Your garden-variety chess hustler in New York City might be a Class A player or expert.
Here we're getting to the Class A (1800-2000) and Class B (1600-1800) categories. Only about 15% of all USCF players have a rating of 1600 and above. Except for simultaneous exhibitions, most in this category have never actually played a grandmaster in a tournament setting, as they usually compete in U2200/U2000 sections. Although it's uncommon, a 1700 player might occasionally take down an expert by playing a superb game or simply getting lucky.

Rating: 1000-1600:
Many in this category simply see chess as an enjoyable hobby and may not be interested in the stressful competitive nature that is tournament life.
In the USCF, dead average is somewhere around 1100-1200. A good game in this rating category could simply be one where nobody blunders a piece or pawn. For comparison, two GMs might consider they've played a good game if they had a fierce opening debate over the board where each got to use their many hours' worth of preparation and computer analysis.

In the vast majority of cases, games in the 1000-2000 rating category are decided by tactics. We typically see some vague opening and get into a random middlegame, but the specifics are often irrelevant to the final result because usually the game ends when someone overlooks a fork or walks into a skewer, or even just blunders a pawn and then loses from there.

In this exciting world, whoever makes the second-to-last mistake usually wins. I say exciting because the unpredictable nature of errors can be part of the fun! You might blunder a bishop in the middlegame, but if your opponent later blunders a queen you could still win.

On the other hand between GMs, barring some knockout opening preparation, decisive games tend to be won in the late middlegame or endgame, where either by carelessness or time pressure someone overlooks an important detail and loses. However, it's well-known that many GM-GM games end in draws. Ergo the phrase "they took a grandmaster draw", used to describe the situation where two GMs sit down, play 10 or 15 moves on the board, and then quickly agree to split the point.


Rightly or wrongly, the "grandmaster draw" is widely criticized by lower-rated players.
Of course, GMs are not always friendly with each other over the board, especially in a must-win situation. To show their true prowess, they might uncork some insanely awesome opening preparation or ruthlessly grind out an 80-move endgame with near-perfect accuracy.


Aronian-Anand, Tata Steel 2013, position after black's 16th move. According to Anand (playing black), he had actually prepared this incredible line for black for his World Championship match with Gelfand in 2012 but didn't get to use it. A year later, he still was able to remember his analysis and Aronian (playing white) was resigning seven moves later.
Broadly speaking, grandmasters are simply pragmatists who don't shy away from hard work. They know what their weaknesses are and actively seek to remedy them. They know how to study chess and how to improve. They learn from their mistakes and do everything they can not to repeat them.


Perhaps contrary to popular belief, grandmasters know they're not perfect and frequently look for ways to improve their understanding of chess.
Maybe all of that blew your mind a little, but here's the nice thing about chess: you don't have to be "good" at it to enjoy and benefit from it. From beginner to world champion, playing a game of chess is still a great (and hopefully fun!) workout for your brain regardless of your rating or the final result.

That being said, next time I'll share my take on how one improves as a chess player. After all, I was once a rank beginner, but I improved and today am a strong master and state champion. What is that path like? How does it happen?

Maybe you're just happy with going from Earth to the moon, or maybe you have big goals and want to go all the way across the galaxy. Regardless, you start at the same place and the journey begins in the same way.

USCF statistics - the author of this blog is a former administrator at US Chess Live.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-few-statistics-from-the-uscf-database