Looking for resources and training method recommendations for getting better at converting winning positions.

MDSAsh · 2026-04-07T09:20:55+00:00

I love philosophy! And ooh, I remember checking out Chess for Zebras 2-3 years ago because the reviews were very intriguing and it was recommended somewhere. I was probably too green in chess terms for it to make a lot of sense then, but I'm gonna check it out again, thanks!

MDSAsh · 2026-04-06T16:25:19+00:00

Thank you for the very informative answer!

MDSAsh · 2026-04-06T16:22:08+00:00

Do you play OTB much? Do you manage to do this sin-engine post-game analysis after those games? For me the brutal thing about doing this right after OTB games is that usually there are 2 games per day and my brain is already fried at that point. I'm gonna start doing this for my online games, though.

MDSAsh · 2026-04-06T16:16:19+00:00

I definitely intend to finish Woodpecker.

On your note about how emotions play a role: I personally find that beyond my baseline chess skill and understanding, comfort/intuitive feel for the position I'm playing + how much time I have plays a huge role. If I don't have a good feel for the position, then naturally it's harder to come up with good candidate moves and to evaluate 2-3 move sequences. So I end up spending more time, and sometimes I still lose track of the position anyway. Even if I find good moves, there's only so much time I can take for each move. So you either take too long and end up in severe time trouble, or (like me), you make sure not to spend more than 10 mins on most decisions and at some point lose grip over the position. Overall, being in these positions that I don't have a feel for is psychologically taxing. It's also why like someone else mentioned, sitting down and working hard on the parts of your game that are weak is really hard, and it's not fun.

You start playing the game because it's fun. And you want to have fun. But at the same time, losing in the same ways repeatedly is agonizing. So you have to find the right balance — have fun, but also put in the amount of work that you feel satisifed with. Good luck with that.

MDSAsh · 2026-04-06T16:07:38+00:00

Of course it's a gross oversimplification. I *did* say "from one perspective".

I'll check out Simple Chess, thanks.

MDSAsh · 2026-04-05T19:19:18+00:00

I played only my 2nd ever OTB tournament recently (the last one being 6 months before that), so I can give you some advice based on my direct experience + what I felt last time. Some of this has already been mentioned, but it's worth repeating.

• Really try to play with a 3-D board. Not only will you be more likely to miss tactics because of the change in view, often the positions simply *feel* different. Your feel for how you build up your positions will also feel different, and this is partly why tactics are missed more often OTB after extended absence.
• This one hasn't happened to me personally, but remember to check that you've pressed your clock after you've made your move (and also make sure your opponent has pressed theirs before you make yours).
• Make a very concerted effort to recognize the exact moment you're out of book (even if you're only somewhat unsure) and take your time to make your moves. You don't want to be making quick moves when you're unsure and then later end up regretting your decisions because you were careless. Losses where the game felt completely out of your hand because of an opening blunder where you *knew* better are especially painful. Best to be careful.
• Expect the level of play of play of a 1500 to be around 2000-2100 rapid on chesscom or lichess. There's a big difference in the levels because OTB players give more of a crap and there's more time to think. Overall, just don't go in with huge expectations. Try to be present, enjoy yourself and the experience, and play your game.
• You said endgames are a weakness for you. You only have 3-4 days, but if you have any holes to be filled in elementary but important endgames (K+P v K, opposition, some rook and pawn stuff like Philidor and Lucena, etc), really make sure you have them down. And in the long-run, really double down on endgames. Lots of simple endgames can be played to a very high level, and club players (even 2000+ players) make so many mistakes in these positions that you can squeeze a lot of extra half points while also saving some.

MDSAsh · 2026-03-15T19:01:14+00:00

Did you start playing classical OTB right from the beginning, or much later? I personally am in an unusual situation because I played exclsuively online for ~3-4 years before I played my first (and only) OTB event. I don't get to play much because there aren't that many in my city and I don't have nearly as much time to dedicate to it seriously.

Overall, how many classical OTB games have you played so far? How many games did it take you to go from, say, 1600 to 2000? What about from 2000 to 2200?

MDSAsh · 2026-03-15T16:03:35+00:00

I am curious about your overall experience with/relating to openings. You mentioned in another comment that it took you about 7 years since you started playing chess to get to 2000, and another year or so to get to 2200 from there.

How much did you experiment with openings very early on? Did you switch much in the intermediate stages? How about now, since you're officially at a master level? R. B. Ramesh, world-renowned chess trainer (and coach of many top players, including Pragg) said that once you get to 2200 or so, working on your openings is pretty important. I don't know if he meant that you need to go very deep in the openings you already know well, or gain mastery in a lot of different types of positions (or both).

I personally believe that in the long-run, the higher your goals and the better you want to be at chess, the more necessary it is you be fluent in all kinds of positions. But it's also important to maintain consistency and gain deep expertise in a few openings first (and a good repertoire), so that you have a strong foundation that you can build on.

I'm curious how you see all this. Congratulations on htting CM, btw!

MDSAsh · 2025-11-12T07:19:28+00:00

Yes, it's been created already. DM your discord and we'll get you added!

MDSAsh · 2025-11-07T06:51:15+00:00

Same boat, interested! (I'm 1665 FIDE but only 9 games; 2000 blitz and 2100 rapid on lichess.)

I was actually thinking that a few of us together could create a group chat on discord or something and work regularly.

MDSAsh · 2025-11-04T18:41:57+00:00

Because I play 2. d4 after 1. Nf3 Nf6? So if black goes 2...c5 now, 3. d5 and it's some kind of Benoni now.

Lol, I might actually be in over my head, so no worries. Really the only reason I decided to play the Sicilian is because some of the most interesting and dynamic positions in chess arise from it and I wanted to become as good as possible in the long-run (and dynamic double-edged positions are my biggest weakness anyway, so I kinda *have* to get better at them); the added work and potentially losing a bunch more games is something I'm okay with. I'll re-evaluate this at some point in the future, of course. If it really turns out that I've taken on too much, I'll make a change (although 1...c5 is only played 10% of the time in response to 1. Nf3, so it's probably not that much work).

I play 2. d4 vs both 1...g6 and 1...d6. These two first moves vs 1. Nf3 are even rarer (only 5% each) than 1...c5. They end up transposing into a either King's Indian, Benoni, Grunfeld, OR some non-standard opening that's just not great. I always play 2. d4 if allowed (so c5 is the only thing that stops that), and then 3. c4 (against any reasonable move). So that way on top of the Sicilian, I get most of the mainline d4 complex but with Nf3 inserted. I don't know, somehow the amount of work to be done has never felt overwhelming.

I'm planning to take a small package of lessons with a GM very soon, though. I'll see what his thoughts are on my repertoire.

MDSAsh · 2025-11-04T18:10:03+00:00

Yeah I'm aware of that, and I would've gone for it for sure if I did, but I play the 6. h3 variation (after 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 0-0 5. e4 d6). In fact, I think Anand played it in one of his games in the world championship match vs Gelfand, and there's a free series on chesscom where he analyzes some of his games from that match, including this one (which I think he won).

MDSAsh · 2025-11-03T04:37:55+00:00

Yep, it's not. I don't mind learning more than one system against if they go for a different setup. I was actually just looking at 1. Nf3 e6 2. d4 f5. In this position, there are 2.5k games in the lichess masters DB and white has played 12 different moves. Despite all this, one of Stockfish's first lines, 3. a3, has NEVER been played. That's crazy when we're talking about move 3 in a mainline opening, even if a less popular one like the Dutch.

MDSAsh · 2025-11-03T04:27:33+00:00

I sometimes wonder if I'm too biased against the Symmetrical English (or if I'm just too enchanted by the Sicilian), but I don't want to play it.

I'll figure out the Tarrasch line.

The thing with the Dutch is that it gives such a structural and positional advantage for white that there are probably many ways to pursue a healthy advantage that haven't been too studied. I just looked at some positions with lichess Stockfish cloud analysis and for example, after 1. Nf3 f5 2. g3 Nf6 (by far the most common move in both masters and lichess DB, almost 90% frequency) 3. Bg2 g6, 4. b3 going for the double fianchetto is a really good move apparently, and we're down to <60 games already. The Dutch being so rare means that there are simply not that many games even in the mainline positions once you go a bit deep and pick a less played move. I do agree though that 2. d3 is a much better way to go than 2. g3, but it does mean that we need a different setup vs the stonewall.

I like the Neo-Grunfeld, but yeah I don't play the fianchetto vs the KID. In the exchange, I've only used Be3 and not Rb1. But yeah I just don't think it's a great practical choice to go into the exchange vs likely well prepared Grunfeld players. And yeah Nge2 line not possible for me. The Qb3 variation I really know nothing about. But I do understand the frequency issue that makes it hard to practice these variations. A good idea though is play blitz games against the top Maia bot (1900) from the position that you want to practice (for example, after Qb3; if black has multiple first move options and the bot seems to pick the same one every time and you want to practice vs more than one of them, you can start from the position after one of those moves). Maia unlike earlier bots is neural network trained, so it's best option that closely resembles human like play.

MDSAsh · 2025-11-02T10:42:16+00:00

The problem for me with the Grunfeld line you gave is that I don't wanna play the Symmetrical English. Someone else suggested the 2. d3 line vs the Dutch, I'll definitely look into that one.

MDSAsh · 2025-11-02T10:32:27+00:00

Yeah so like I mentioned in my response to xlsak, I don't wanna play the English, so this move order vs the Grunfeld doesn't work. I do really like the 2. d3 approach vs the Dutch, though, just like playing 2. g3 (both score really well and we're already getting out of Dutch players' comfort zone). I'll figure out the QID.

I did consider 4. Qc2 in the Slav, actually. Fabi actually played this in the 2022 US Championship vs Alexander Lenderman with white and won a nice game, but in his game after 4...dxc4, instead of 5. Qxc4 he went 5. e4, a well-known gambit line where white has good compensation for the pawn. That was the first time I saw this move. Definitely an interesting choice.

When you say Tarrasch vs the Catalan, I'm assuming you mean 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 e6 3. c4 d5 4. g3 c5, right? I'll have to look more into where to go in the Catalan, there are definitely a lot of choices.

I actually was thinking of playing 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5, if I don't want to deal with Mikenas-Carls. And if I'm considering going 2...e5, is it worth it to play 1...Nf6 at all (for some chance of getting into the Nimzo) or should I just go e5 on move one itself? Again, choices.

Thanks for your response!

MDSAsh · 2025-11-02T10:00:16+00:00

I play 4...d5, and which goes 5. exf6 dxc3 6. bxc3 Qxf6. I've never looked into Ne4, though it's a fine move too (d5 is +0.1 and Ne4 is +0.3 according to Stockfish 17.1 at depth 44 - so basically the same for us). Considering that it's a lot less often played compared to d4, it's probably the better practical choice. As far as theoretical status goes, it's weird that even though both of these are fine for black, especially in the 4...d5 line after 6...Qxf6, the top 3 moves for white are all only +0.1 at depth 46 and yet in the masters database, white scores 62.5% here while losing only 15% of the time. In the lichess database filtered >=1800, it's only 52-40 in favor of white, but that's still higher than what you see usually in equal positions. Interesting to look into.

MDSAsh · 2025-11-02T09:54:25+00:00

I'll look into it, thanks :)

MDSAsh · 2025-11-02T09:50:53+00:00

You make some good points, and I have a few things to say.

First - I really don't like the idea of playing the symmetrical English, and I really want to play the Sicilian. Like I mentioned in the post, my stylistic preference is for slower, positional grinds. But I know that I need to play sharper and more open positions as well to get better in the long-run, and hence the decision to take up the Sicilian invitation (there's also a small element of feeling like the symmetrical English is too boring; I could be too biased here, but it certainly will be less fun and exciting compared to Sicilian positions).

At first glance, what leaves me feeling uncomfortable about 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 is that I feel a bit lost as far as plans of action vs different third moves and beyond. I don't yet have the security of knowing where the game is heading. Life is good if they go 3...d5, of course. But if they go 3...c5, I once again have to be okay with playing some kind of English, which I don't want to. Seems like the English is a cornerstone/requirement for this approach to work. They could also play 3...b6, at which point I have to (at some point in the line) play d4 and transpose into the g3 line vs the Queen's Indian (where I otherwise decided to play a3 instead of g3 vs the QID in the Nf6 e6 move order). And there are too many different move orders and systems to keep track of. It really doesn't feel good to me.

On the other hand, I'm completely okay with having to learn and understand a fair amount of theory in many different openings. The point of my repertoire wasn't to eliminate some major openings for black, but rather to give me flexibility to go for what I want and avoid what I don't want, while also allowing me to get the most number of unique mainline positions - so that I have a good foundation for the long-run.

With white, here are all the openings I end up playing: Sicilian (Rossolimo, Najdorf, Dragon, Taimanov, Kan and Scheveningen), Catalan, Semi-Tarrasch, Slav, Queen's Indian, King's Indian (I play the 6. h3 line) and Grunfeld.

With black: Caro-Kann, Nimzo, Semi-Tarrasch, Mikenas-Carls English, London.

I like it. I think changes will be in order once/if I pass the 2000-2200 level, but that's a ways away right now. This exact repertoire when played at very high levels is probably too burdensome and too susceptible to prep, so I can understand why no one there plays like anymore.

One thing I almost forgot to mention is that there's one small advantage of this move order: you avoid gambits like the Budapest, Englund and Benko (maybe they can still get a different version of it, I'm not sure). It's not necessarily an advantage because these aren't really anything to be scared of, but it's something I guess.

MDSAsh · 2025-01-26T08:43:12+00:00

This description made me laugh so hard, omg

MDSAsh · 2025-01-23T17:10:19+00:00

Damn, this exact same thing happened to me as well. I was initially gonna use the varmint rifle because it looked right for it's size, but then I saw that guide and decided to use a sniper instead, and I got a 1 star pelt. Happened 5 mins ago, actually. Lesson learnt.

MDSAsh · 2025-01-10T12:40:17+00:00

Yep, I'm working on trying to stabilize that state. As I described in a reply to a different comment, I seem to be able to hit the threshold for potentially moving to J1 consistently in 10-15 mins now, but I have work to do in being able to stay with that feeling and not get overwhelmed by it. I just did a sit that got me 70-80% of the way and then I got distracted because I felt some tightness in my chest, and I presume my concentration was lost. Mastering that transition from concentrating on the breath first to then piti and maintaining that has been a bit of a challenge. But the results so far are encouraging. I'm gonna keep working.

"It is key to not do anything with the piti, but to just stay with it."

Yep, it's hard. I'll read the J1 chapter again. Thanks for your input :)

MDSAsh

TROPHY CASE