January 21, 2025 • 52 mins
113 Rarely do grandmasters focus on helping club players and beginners. But when they do it’s rare and exciting. Their extra skill and understanding of the game deliver insights that even other titled players may not possess. That’s what GM Josh Friedel offers as a course creator and coach. And it can be heard throughout this interview.
Of course, Josh has had an impressive chess career. Competitively, he tied for 6th place at the US Chess Championship in 2009 and competed at the World Cup.
He has passed along this hard-earned chess knowledge for decades by coaching club players.
And for nearly as long, he’s been creating courses, most recently for Chessable on common mistakes in the opening and middlegame.
In this episode, we chat:
- Common middle-game mistakes and how to avoid them.
- Josh’s unique qualities as a coach that separate him from the pack.
- Why is it so difficult to convert a won position - and how to get better at it.
GIVEAWAY: To win Josh’s Chessable course on avoiding middlegame mistakes, follow Daniel Lona on Twitter for details and updates (for the week of 1/21/25 only.)
More From Josh:
How You Can Support the Pod:
Join this show’s Patreon called “Podcast Perks” and get benefits like:
- Submitting questions to guests
- A shout-out of your name on the pod
- Vote on future topics/guests
- Exclusive behind-the-scenes updates about the show
- DM me any month for a brief chat on chess or episodes
Click here to join the Patreon for The Chess Experience.
Or you can…
>>Support this pod by grabbing a chess.com membership which will help you improve your chess & defeat your enemies. A small portion will fund this pod - and every bit helps! Just click this link.
>> Neither? How about checking out Daniel's chess.com profile? Witness his countless, embarrassing blitz losses. He even accepts some friend requests. (Ad)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, welcome to the chess experience On this show.
It's all about helping adultimprovers.
I want to make learning chesseasier for you to navigate, and
I also want you to have a morefun experience along the way.
I'm your host, daniel Lona, afellow chess amateur.
Let's get to it.
(00:25):
This show is sponsored bychesscom, the world's largest
chess community.
Chesscom recently launched anew way to learn from your games
with a feature called insights.
If you visit chesscom slashinsights, you can get detailed
stats and analysis in any of thetime controls you've played and
across any time period.
What kind of things can youlearn?
(00:50):
Well, you can learn.
What time of day do you playyour best morning, afternoon or
night?
What part of the game are youstrongest or weakest?
Opening, middle game or endgame?
Are you making more or lessmistakes than opponents at your
level?
You can find out all this greatinfo and much more at chesscom
slash insights.
Welcome to this week's episode.
Our guest today is AmericanGrandmaster Josh Friedel.
(01:12):
Josh learned to play chess whenhe was just three years old and
has had an impressive chessjourney ever since.
He became an IM in 2005 andthen a GM in 2009.
That same year, he tied forsixth place at the US Chess
Championship and later competedin the World Cup.
He's also been creating coursesfor many years and he also has
written regularly for Chess Life.
(01:33):
Most recently, he's publishedtwo chessable courses.
One is on opening mistakes andthe other is on middle game
mistakes.
We talked about the latter inthis episode at length and Josh
gives some great advice on howto avoid common middle game
mistakes for both beginners andintermediates.
On that subject, I'll be doing achessable course giveaway of
(01:54):
one of Josh's courses this weekon Twitter.
It will be on the one I justreferenced the full video
version of his course onavoiding middle game mistakes
and I've personally gone throughsome of it and it's fantastic.
Josh is great at explainingchess concepts in a clear and
direct way and, even though itis aimed at beginners, it is
(02:15):
incredibly helpful forintermediates.
I like to think I'm anintermediate, I went through it
and I was learning a ton.
So to win this course, followme on Twitter at Lona,
underscore chess.
I also have a link in the shownotes to my Twitter profile in
case you didn't remember exactlyhow to spell my Twitter handle,
so you could just go and clickon that link in the show notes
and follow me there.
(02:35):
Tomorrow I'll post details onthe video course giveaway for
his course on avoiding middlegame mistakes.
Okay, wrapping up this episode'spreview, I also talked with
Josh about his coaching career.
He answers a couple ofimprovement questions from my
followers and we also discussedwhy he wants to return to OTB
competition.
Here's my interview with Josh.
I hope you enjoy it.
(02:55):
Hi, josh, I'm excited to chatwith you today.
I know you told me in advanceyou're a little under the
weather, but other than that,how are you doing?
I'm doing pretty well.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Yeah, my pleasure, very excited to chat with you,
been impressed with yourchessable courses and the work
you've done there because, well,I mean, just on the face of it
it's already it's really coolstuff.
But in the run-up to ourinterview today I had a chance
to go through some of them andjust dive into more of your
teaching style and what you'reoffering.
I just think it's fantasticstuff.
(03:26):
So I'm excited to talk aboutthat and everything else.
Chess with you today, yeah,should be good.
So one of the things thatstands out to me about what you
do and what you've done is withrespect to your coaching.
This may be my own sillythought in my head, I don't know
, but typically when I think ofa GM coaching students, I
imagine them coaching people2000 on up, just because they,
(03:47):
as a coach, are so advanced.
But, that said, I love when aGM takes their expertise to help
club players as well as you do.
So, yeah, I just want to knowabout how this all unfolded for
you.
Can you talk about yourcoaching career?
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Sure, and, yeah, I appreciate you going through my
courses and stuff.
It's always actually veryflattering to me because I spend
time on them and I try to makethem good, but I'm always like,
are they really good?
So I'm glad that you've likedthem.
So I started coaching when Iwas in my teens I would say like
fairly young.
I was probably like 2300s, butI had very little teaching
(04:23):
experience.
Needless to say, I was not agreat coach at first, not as in,
I was probably like 2300s, butI had very little teaching
experience.
Needless to say, I was not agreat coach at first, not as in.
I was bad, but, as in, I didn'treally know how to coach.
I was a very good player and Icould convey information.
I wasn't bad for my students,but I didn't really know how to
properly coach people yet.
You know, because I'm juststarting right, sure, but then
(04:48):
it's something that because,unless you're like very, very
top player which I never quitewas like you're not going to
make a living by playing.
So coaching is something if youwant to do chess, that's
something you have to do.
But it is still something thatI strove to become better at and
at some point it became just avery regular part of what I do
and I really enjoy it, like atthis point.
(05:08):
It's like at the beginningthere were certain parts where I
was like, well, I'd rather beplaying all the time and
studying, which you know is nicebut now it's like I like
obviously playing and studyingand that kind of thing.
But I've gotten to really enjoythe coaching quite a bit and
yeah, I mean it's like a good.
It's a good thing that I'm gladI started doing.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Yeah, yeah, that's fantastic.
So I'm curious about, like, whoyou have coached over the years
, because you know you've saidyou've coached since you were in
your teens.
Yeah, so you've been doing itsome years now.
Have you always coached atypical rating range?
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Ah, yeah, I remember Sorry, the question about the
2000 plus thing and all of this,right, yeah, I mean, like when
you're trying to coach it's notlike, especially when I started
I wasn't.
It wasn't like I was gettingtons of requests, right, so I
wasn't particularly good atpromoting myself.
Still, that's not a strength ofmine.
So you know, I would kind ofsay yes when people wanted me to
(06:02):
coach, coach them regardless oftheir level.
But I would say in general thatI don't really care about the
level so much Like I enjoycoaching.
You know, usually I don't coachquite beginners like people who
are just learning the moves isvery rare.
But like, say, from noviceplayers to even like other
grandmasters sometimes, like Ilike coaching all of them.
(06:23):
They're all kind of differentand they all offer their own
challenges.
But it's definitely something Iwas always willing to coach
kind of any level, partiallyjust for practical reasons,
right, like I didn't get thatmany requests.
So you know I would coachwhoever really wanted, you know
was interested in me and wantedto work with me.
But it's also something that Ireally don't dislike coaching
any level Like to me they allhave their own challenges and
(06:46):
interesting parts to it.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Is it easy at this point for you to shift gears to
like the level that you'recoaching?
You know, like, say, in a givenday, for example, if you were
coaching someone who was just1600 and then your next student
is 2300 or something, or 2200,whatever.
It's a different style ofcoaching, right?
I?
Speaker 2 (07:03):
think, yeah, it could be a bit jarring if I go from
one to the other, but you, youget used to doing that.
Um, I would say in general,like one of the things that I
tend to do is I do aim high asfar as the level of difficulty
of what I present.
Like I'm always worried aboutgiving whether it's like when
I'm going over and askingquestions or whether I'm giving
(07:23):
them positions I'm alwaysworried it will be too easy.
So, if anything, shoot above.
But it definitely takes someadapting, not just to the levels
, but everyone's personality isdifferent.
Learned the game almost kind ofrecently and it was really
getting into it.
And then I coach you knowjuniors who are, you know,
(07:47):
really, really strong already.
And then I coach you knowpeople middle-aged, who are 2100
, right, like.
So they're all differentpersonalities as well as levels,
and if you try to coach themall in the exact same way, it's
not going to work out too well,you know Sure.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
So you said, I think, when we talked beforehand, that
, like right now, you typicallyteach in the range of 1600 to
2100.
Like that's like the bell ofthe bell curve where your
students land right now.
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Yeah, and it's not by choice, it's just where they
happen to be at the moment.
I've had periods where I'vecoached largely 22 to 2400.
I've had periods with moreunder 1200, even like it really
depends, but right now I'd saythe past bunch of years,
especially like that, tends tobe the the range of people who
seek me out.
I would say 16 to 21 2200.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
That range.
I know you mentioned that selfpromotion.
You didn't feel like was astrength, but maybe slightly
awkwardly, asked you to do thatright now.
Feel like was a strength butI'll maybe slightly awkwardly
ask you to do that right now.
Um, which is um, get readyeveryone.
Uh, yeah, like what?
What do you feel is like one ofyour strengths as a coach?
Because I I feel like coacheswho've been doing it for a while
(08:55):
typically pride themselves likeat least one thing that they
feel you know they stand out onas a coach um, let me see, I
mean I would say that, um, justjust as coaches go like, having
a coach who is a grandmaster canbe useful even at lower levels.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Just having a coach who's like a grandmaster as
opposed to like even 2200, thereare fewer things that you have
to relearn, um, because you knowlike, let's say, like a 2200
doesn't understand the gamequite as well, generally
speaking, right.
So there are going to becertain things that they will
teach that maybe aren't quiteaccurate, even if they're great
coaches, right, there are plentyof 2200s or even below who are
(09:34):
excellent coaches, right, butthey don't quite understand the
game as as well.
So there are always certainthings that you have to relearn,
which isn't the biggest deal,but when you are having a gm
coach, that doesn't happen asoften.
You know what I mean, yeah, sothere is an advantage of that.
As far as me, personally, I'mhonestly like and again you can
see why I'm so successful atself-promotion I can't think of
(09:55):
anything in particular that I'dbe like.
Yeah, like, I love showing endgames.
I know, I like working on endgames if a student wants to come
to me, yeah, I want to learnabout end games.
I tend to, you know, be able toshow a lot of things and be
able to do that um, so I'd saylike, like that would be like a
specialty, I, I guess.
Um, but I think a lot of mystrength is just the willingness
(10:17):
to change, based on the student, quite a bit like I have
certain routines I have withdifferent students.
Like my lessons do not look thesame.
Um, there are a lot of coacheswho I've known who kind of their
their lessons like they couldbe even quite good coaches, but
their lessons tend to look thesame, regardless of who the
student is.
Is then, all right, you want togo over your games?
All right, let's go, let's dothis.
(10:38):
And it's like they have kind ofa set thing, whereas for me
it's kind of I'll a set thing,whereas for me it's kind of I'm
fine coming up with what I wantto do, and then if my student
has something they really wantto do, I can do it.
I think the flexibility of thatmaybe is a strength I have, so
this may be the best I couldcome up with.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
No, that's a great answer.
Yeah, that's definitely astrength.
That's not.
I mean, that's very valuablebut not very common always.
So that's that's excellent.
So I'd like to dive intotalking about your chess level
courses now.
Yeah, and based on what wetalked about that, you know you
mostly teach intermediates on up.
You know this course that youcreated is still aimed at
(11:17):
beginners and I'm curious ifthat was the most you had done,
like to really just focus on howto teach beginners outside of
just like an occasional studentor two yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So I would say like it's not like.
So I've interacted with plentyof beginners, right, I've taught
in schools before.
Uh, I've done like enough thatI know like I'm at least
familiar enough with teachingbeginners.
Um, it's something which I'vedone a fair amount of and I'm
not at all uncomfortable with it.
So, yeah, I mean, I don't thinkit's so much that I think that
(11:50):
the video courses I've donevideo courses probably since mid
2000s, so I've been doing a lotof them and I haven't done as
many videos as some people whodo like YouTube videos all the
time.
But I've done a fair share, butI've done very few just aimed
at beginners.
So the main thing that I wasworried about and nervous about
is to make sure it's aimed well.
But, as I told you, I don'tlike making things too easy.
(12:13):
So I did put in some positionswhich are still from beginner
games but which are a little bittrickier.
So I thought that a beginnerbecause it's a choice between
two moves a beginner can likelysolve it, but that even a more
advanced player like yourselfwould still be challenged a
little bit, because to actuallysee the whole solution is not
(12:33):
easy, even if deciding betweenthe two moves is relatively
simple, and my aim was so thateven, like you know again,
players who are on theintermediate range or lower
intermediate range could stillpick up a few things, even
though it's aimed at beginners.
My main hope is that beginnersstill get plenty out of it, but
that I actually don't mindhearing that.
You know, slightly strongerplayers can also be challenged
(12:55):
by a few positions.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Yeah, and I think it's worth mentioning that
because I think a majority of myaudience is in that range that
I'm in as an intermediate clubplayer.
And, to add to what you'resaying, when I was going through
your course, even if I pickedthe correct answer, where you
often pose like two options evenif I picked the correct answer,
your explanation still was veryhelpful because you would
(13:21):
highlight lines that maybe I hadmissed and I was like, oh,
maybe I didn't fully understandwhy this was the right choice,
and then just even just thelittle tips that you give along
the way about how to understandthe position better.
you know are all insights that Imostly didn't have anyhow.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Oh, glad to hear that .
Speaker 1 (13:38):
So you know, just yeah, seeing it through your
eyes, in other words, isobviously a lot more
illuminating than seeing itthrough my own and understanding
chess.
It's a very helpful course, Ithink, even for intermediates,
in fact.
Let's talk about one of them inparticular.
But just as a preface, I wantto mention that you have two
courses published so far.
Both have the main title ofbeginner mistakes and how to
(14:00):
avoid them.
One focuses on openings rightnow.
The other focuses on middlegame mistakes.
I know more are coming, butthat's current as of the time of
this recording, and I want totalk about the middle game
course a bit.
I'm curious how you pick thedifferent categories of mistakes
in the middle game to cover.
You have tactical, attacking,consolidation, positional and
(14:22):
awareness as the categories ofmistakes that you could make.
So how did you decide on thoseversus any others?
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Yeah, I mean honestly .
So my process is I get themistakes first.
I want a collection of mistakesfirst and then I have to
categorize them in some way.
When they're beginner mistakes,a lot of the times they do
involve something like droppinga piece or something like that,
and it's hard.
But I don't want to have everycategory be don't hang your
pieces right, like that would be.
(14:49):
People would be like why am Ibuying this course, right?
So I wanted to categorize itsomewhat and those are the
categories I came up with.
That, at least to me, madesense.
So, even though you're still alot of the mistakes are still
kind of all right, don't giveanything away or don't do
anything.
There are definitely mistakeswhich I would say are yeah,
don't play a weakening pawn,move right or don't you know.
(15:10):
And I did try to includemistakes like that, which
generally are not what I wouldcall even beginner mistakes,
like there are mistakes thatmore advanced players can make.
But I think having a beginnerget a jumpstart on why these
moves are bad and what to try tofix it is still a good thing.
So I kind of organized it byyou know the kind of mistakes I
(15:31):
saw often and then I tried tomake it so that there are at
least some distinct things,right, but I really did it by
choosing the mistakes first.
Right, I picked the.
I went through a lot ofbeginner games way too many and
I went through and I pickedmoments which I thought were
quite good.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Yeah, that's awesome, and I mean some of those things
I've just not heard of, as Iguess you could say categories
of mistakes like consolidationor attacking, just as a category
.
Like I could, I could, you know, envision scenarios where my
attack was not successful, but Inever thought of it as, oh, as
a player, I struggle in makingtoo many attacking mistakes.
(16:14):
You know, like it just wasn't.
I never saw it that way, so Iappreciate that it's actually
funny.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
You say that because I I have a student of mine and
he's, like you know, kind of anolder guy.
He really understands the gamewell.
He's like 2100 something, right, uh, but he understands the
game on a very high level.
And I was looking through hisgames and at some point I said
to him that like yeah, so youshould really do more mating
patterns, just like solve morecheckmates.
And what he told me later wasthat was like the most useful
(16:42):
thing I anyone had told him.
Like he improved more from justdoing mating patterns than
anything else.
And it's not like I told himsomething magical, right.
He basically said it was kindof a joke, like yeah, nothing
else you told me was useful, butthat was useful and it was
really.
It's amazing how oftensomething like that is important
, like people just don't knowtheir mating patterns.
In my lesson this morning therewere at least a couple of times
(17:05):
where I was waiting and I'mteaching like really talented,
nice kid, right, but he wasstruggling to see like it was an
end game and there was a matingpattern which is common.
He was struggling to see it andit's very clear that, like, if
you don't practice thesepatterns, it's very difficult.
So I did see that a lot in thebeginner games and learning how
to checkmate your opponent isjust an important thing to do.
(17:25):
That was why that category kindof came up for me, and it's
funny because I see it atdifferent levels, not just
beginner.
Yeah, I absolutely would nothave expected that to be an area
of weakness, for positionalunderstanding, for 2100 is
insane, like crazy good, butthere's a reason why he's 2100.
(17:47):
One of them is like, yeah, yougot to learn how to checkmate
your opponent, buddy, and itsounds kind of dumb, but it's
actually very important, right,it's an important skill, yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Yeah, for sure.
So I want to talk a little bitabout that chapter on
consolidation, because I thinkyou talk about something there
that I think deserves to bediscussed more often, which is
the challenge of converting aone position.
Yeah, you dive into that morein the course, but I'm curious
to hear just some quick thoughtsfrom you on why is this so
(18:18):
challenging for peopleconverting a one position?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I think the challenging part of it is that
people either over adapt or theyunder adapt because they're
like, oh, I have a winningposition and then either they
relax too much and allowcounterplay or they are like, oh
my gosh, I have to just try totrade everything and they make
just bad moves.
So, learning the balance of,yeah, you still want to improve
your pieces and play justnatural good moves, but there
(18:40):
are certain ways you lean, like,if you can simplify the
position when you're up a piece,the odds of you, you know it's
a great way to try to win.
You want to keep the gamesimpler.
But a lot of the times I getpositions where you know a
student of mine this happenswith me quite frequently where a
student of mine wants to tradeQueens and I'm like, why are you
trading Queens?
You're mating them.
Like, why are we trading Queens?
(19:01):
I know you're up material, butwhy are we trading queens?
I know you're up material, butjust checkmate.
What's the problem?
So it's kind of.
I think people either over adapt, like they just try to trade
everything and that's all theydo and that's the only function
of their moves.
It sounds kind of silly, butthey have it ingrained at a
young age.
You have to trade pieces whenyou're up material, and that can
get in the way in a lot ofpositions.
And then you have people whojust relax too much, right, they
(19:23):
don't worry about it, they,they end up just letting the
game spiral out of control, andit's a really hard thing for any
level really.
It's one of the hardest thingsto do, uh, is to convert to one
position, and I think it'sbecause you have to adapt just
the right amount, um, and that'sthe hard part of it right?
Speaker 1 (19:41):
that's a great insight on the the, the other
end of the spectrum we justtalked about.
Do you think that's a functionof just being overconfident in
the game, feeling like, well,there's not much, I need to do
anymore, just sometimes, uh, itcould definitely be, can be that
.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Um, other times it's more just like they worked hard
earlier because they had tofigure out stuff and then, once
they get the winning position,it's a natural thing to kind of
like oh, now the hard part'sover, whereas oftentimes the
hard part kind of begins right.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Yeah, yeah, exactly so it's.
It's kind of a natural reaction.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
I find that people have, um, and everyone has their
own sense of this.
I find that every student'sdifferent and as far as like
where they relax, like somepeople relax when it's like, oh,
now I just have an extra piecein an end game I'll win without
thinking.
Or oh, now I just have like areally big positional edge and
nothing could happen to me.
Like there's always differentparts where people relax and
(20:35):
it's it's individual to eachplayer is what I find that's a
great explanation.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
You mentioned how one of the mistakes in
consolidation can be justthinking that all you need to do
is trade, trade pieces.
Yeah, I see that all the time.
Uh, yeah, until just your, yourmaterial advantage remains and
nothing else.
Why is that not enough?
Speaker 2 (20:55):
uh, it's just, there are so many times when people
forget they're playing, likeit's still playing a chess
position.
Right, if you have an amazingpiece, like if you have some
like monster knight cemented onD6 and you're like, well, I'm up
material, I should trade it foran awful CA bishop, that's
never moving, it's still a badmove, right.
Like you're still worseningyour position.
It's, and it's just somethingthat people struggle because
(21:19):
it's so ingrained, like fromearly coaching or early advice,
you want to trade pieces whenyou're up.
It actually gets in your way.
Like you end up playing movesthat are unfavorable.
You end up spending two orthree tempe to seek out a trade
while your opponent's improvingtheir pieces.
Who do you think is going tobenefit from that?
You know Right, and I thinkpeople forget they still have to
play chess.
(21:39):
Like they still have to improvetheir pieces, they still have
to do good things.
Like.
Trading is kind of one of thosethings where it should be nice
but it's not like.
All right, I'm just going toseek out all the trades in the
position.
You know like.
Let me put it this way let'ssay you have the starting
position and you have an extrarook against gm, just for
example, right, do you thinkyou're gonna have a lot of
(21:59):
success if you're like, well,I'll just trade off all the
pieces and then I'll win?
Speaker 1 (22:03):
not.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Not against the GM, no like this is not a good
strategy, right, it's a reallybad strategy.
Like you should play kind ofnormal right.
Now it's an exaggeratedscenario, but a lot of positions
are like that.
You have to kind of play normalgood moves most of the time,
but you have a sort of leaningtowards simple positions.
You don't want to make itcomplicated.
Simple positions, you don'twant to make it complicated.
(22:26):
You have a leaning towardstrading off material to make the
game simpler when you're upmaterial.
Right, you want to think morelean than all.
Right, this is my primary goalin the position, because most
positions you got to improveyour pieces.
That's just the way chess works.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Right, yeah, that was a great explanation.
So yeah, like I mentioned, inaddition to the middle game
course that you have right nowin Chessable, you also have one
related to opening mistakes.
What are the future coursesthat you plan on doing with
Chessable?
Speaker 2 (22:50):
So at the moment I'm working on.
Obviously, getting a cold whenthis happens is perfect, but I'm
working on recording the endgame version now, so beginner
mistakes and avoiding them inthe end game.
So basically the end gameversion of the other two.
So it was definitely a muchharder course to record, just
(23:12):
because not a lot of beginnergames get to endgames a lot of
the time, and when they do,sometimes one side's up like
five pieces.
So I had to change the natureof the course a little bit.
But I still think I'm hoping atleast it will be very
beneficial for, you know, forboth beginners and lower
intermediate players, and a lotof it also is just filling in
some end game knowledge too, um,and stuff like that.
(23:33):
But it's um, that's currentlywhat I'm working on, Um, and
then at some point I'll, I'll,I'll work.
I'm sure they want, you knowthey they tend to like opening
courses.
It's just what.
What they tend to like openingcourses, it's just what people
do.
So I might try one, but I'dwant to do something that's a
little different, not kind ofthe same.
So I'm still kind of thinkingabout that, but at the moment
I'm working on the endgamecourse Before.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
I talk about your book.
You said something earlier thatI just wanted to follow up on a
little bit.
You said you had been doingcourses since, I think you said,
like late 2000s Is that right?
I think mid.
Where have you done thesecourses?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
like um.
So I think the first one I didwas chess lecturecom, when they
first started coming out withcourses um, I think I was one of
the early ones to do them.
Um, this was when there weren'tlike infinite chess videos out
there, right, um, like Iactually had an experience that
was both really nice and alsoreally kind of terrifying, where
(24:27):
there was this woman who is, Ithink, she, I think she's a
college student or justgraduated college and she told
me yeah, I grew up watching Donot tell me this, I'm not that
old, but anyways, a painfulcompliment.
Yeah, kind of, it was nice, butit was also like, oh my
goodness, but yeah, it was.
(24:50):
So I would say I did it forchess lecture.
And then I'm trying to rememberwhere all the websites I ended
up doing them for.
But there are quite a few.
I don't remember all of them,honestly.
I just know that I was doingthem basically from like 2006 or
whatever to now, essentially.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
So, yeah, let's talk about your book.
I know you're working on one.
What's the topic?
Projected release date oh no,yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
So it's one of those things where it's something I've
been working on a while, justfree time, and I would say the
last six months have been, forvarious personal reasons and
various, just traveling to workand doing other things.
I've just have not had thattime and working on Chessable
courses, especially this lastone, has been quite time
consuming, which is fine.
So the book kind of takes abackseat, essentially focusing
(25:41):
on things that earn you a livingright now.
I have to prioritize.
You know, focusing on thingsthat you know earn you a living
right now I have to prioritize.
So, um, you know it's kind oftaking a back seat, but in
general it's kind of it's aimedto be like a general improving.
So the idea is that I take eachchess skill and I try to break
them apart.
So essentially I takecalculation, for example, and I
(26:02):
break it apart into differentgroups, so like, okay, this is
how you look for your tempomoves.
And then you have positionswhere you practice just looking
for tempo moves, that's it.
Then I say, all right, this ishow you look ahead with your
tempo moves.
Then you practice just lookingahead seeing all the tempo moves
.
Then here's how you visualize aposition, right.
So this is the position,several moves from now, and I
(26:24):
call it kind of dynamicvisualization, where it's
basically not just countingmaterial in a future position,
but being able to say what arethe tempo moves here, what are
the checks, captures, threats,what's going on, who's better
there, and being able to see theposition in a clear way.
And I basically because, whenyou think about calculation,
it's a skill that is made up ofa bunch of things jumbled right,
(26:47):
so I try to take them apart andwork on them.
One at a time is the idea.
That's amazing.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
I love that.
That sounds fantastic.
I mean, I'm really excitedabout the book and the only sad
news now is knowing that-.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Yeah, yeah, now it may never you know, 20 years
I'll be like walking around witha cane and finally promote my
book.
No, I'm hoping it's something Iget back to.
It's just when I have a lot ofstuff going on.
It definitely takes a backseat,sure, but I would say like, at
the moment I have a lot ofwriting, like I've written a lot
.
I like to write in generalactually, even though it's not
something I do for a living,exactly Like I like to write.
(27:22):
So I did a fair amount of thewriting.
The hard part is sourcing a lotof the positions because the
nature of my book, a lot of thepositions I have to invent, um,
so that takes some time.
And then others I have tosource from my material, which
is uh kind of vast, obviously,but it's like it takes quite a
bit of time to do that.
So I'd say that that's going tobe the the tricky part of doing
(27:43):
everything, um.
But yeah, I'm hoping it haslike a little something that you
know a lot of players can use.
It's mainly aimed atintermediate players, but I do
have a beginner section actuallywhere I do a bunch of
activities that I would do with.
You know, like I did thisactually when I was like a long
time ago, when I was showing myniece how to play, like I would
put a knight in the middle ofthe board and say, show me how
it moves, and that kind of thing, and I give some kind of
(28:04):
exercises that I think forbeginners would be very useful
and things like that this wouldbe your first book.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Yeah yeah, just curious because what the
experience difference is for youbetween writing a book and
creating a video course?
Is one easier or harder?
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Well, I've done so many more videos.
I've never written a book right, so I like to write in general.
So I've never written a bookright, so I like to write in
general.
So I've done articles on chess.
I like to just do regularwriting as well, but it's more
of a like.
It's not something I do for aliving, it's more of just
something I like to do.
So I enjoy the writing, butit's definitely not something
I'm.
You know, I've done as manytimes, obviously, like the chess
videos I've done so many thatit's a little bit easier just
(28:41):
because I know kind of how toput one together and what it
should look like and obviouslyI'm not saying they're all
perfect, but at least I knowkind of how to do it Whereas a
book is like a huge undertaking,at least for me.
I'm amazed by people whopublish all these books.
I'm like how do you actually dothis and have a life outside of
making your book?
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Maybe they wonder how you publish so many videos.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Maybe.
I mean, I think also part of itis like it went from a course,
from a video or, sorry, a bookthat was going to be about kind
of like tips and tricks to likelet me deconstruct all of chess,
and I don't know why I did that.
It's just what happened.
So now I'm kind of going withit but, uh, I'm hoping at least
it'll, like it'll come out atsome point and it'll have things
that you know, if you don't usethe whole, hoping at least
(29:26):
it'll come out at some point andit'll have things that you know
, if you don't use the wholebook, at least some things that
people will find useful.
Sure.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Yeah well, I'm cheering it on because it sounds
like a fantastic book.
I love the topics, I love yourapproach.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Yeah, yeah, so I'm hoping it'll work out.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Yeah, so you have a YouTube channel that covers a
lot of improvement topics,ranging from how to create
counterplay to how to create amating attack.
Yeah, lots of great topicsthere.
How do you choose what tocreate for a video Like?
What's the inspiration for them?
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Usually it's kind of I see a position or I see a game
that's being played and I'mlike, oh, that'll be a cool idea
, you know.
Or I see a type of mistake froma lot of students that they
make repeatedly, or a type ofmistake from a lot of students
that they make repeatedly, or atype of thing that I think would
be like generally useful, and Iusually aim it again at kind of
intermediate.
Um, although it's actuallyreally funny.
(30:14):
One of the other times I had aformer student of mine who's now
a gm, was like yeah, so I waslooking at your video and I saw
this king of pottingham.
I'm like you were watching myvideo.
I was like what's happening?
But yeah, in general it'susually like I get inspired by
like following live events or by, you know, just seeing a type
of mistake made frequently, andthen I kind of have different
(30:38):
examples to kind of highlight it, and a lot of the idea is that
it's often from games of like GMgames or top player whether
it's top player or you knowother GM games or you know, at
the slightly lower level, butit's aimed to show how this type
of mistake can actually be likedissected at like, you know,
obviously at lower level it'smade with greater frequency, but
(30:59):
it's kind of this is what thismistake looks like, kind of
thing.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Well, I mean I appreciate the quality of topics
that you brought up and taughtin your YouTube channel.
I mean it feels like you figureout topics that just haven't
been covered a thousand times byother.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
That's also something I try to do, like I try to
think of things that are, youknow, not out there.
Like I don't watch a lot ofchess YouTube, really, but I try
to cover things that aren't youknow as typical, I guess.
So I want it to be my own thing, and if people like it there,
they don't, it's fine, but it'skind of I want it to be its own
thing, you know right, right,yeah, and I appreciate it's not
(31:36):
like just oh, have you triedthis crazy opening track?
yeah, yeah, that's why I can'twatch chess youtube.
There are some things where I'mseeing it, I'm like, oh god,
there are thousands of peoplewatching this.
This is all these, all thesepeople, it's.
It's kind of like watching,like you know, a psychologist
watching people go insane.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
It's like, okay, I have to now, like you know, help
these people right, right, uh,quick aside you, you mentioned
casually, as you were talkingabout your channel, that you had
a student who is now a gm.
That's really impressive.
What rating or level were theyat when they started with you?
Speaker 2 (32:11):
um, so, yeah, I've had, I've had a few students who
either became jabs I've workedwith sub gms, I've worked with
jabs who are stronger than me,right, like, and obviously it's
not like I'm teaching themeverything, but I could still
help them with certain things,right, right, and then uh, but I
would say I taught him, I'veknown him since he was, uh,
quite young, um, so I, I, youknow, I interacted with him a
(32:32):
little and then I startedteaching him when he was in his
like early teens, and then Itaught him, like maybe six,
seven, eight years ago as well,when he was like just becoming a
GM kind of um, you know, and uh, yeah, now he watches my videos
out of sheer boredom, I'massuming.
So I don't know.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Too hard on yourself.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Yeah, it's all good.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Yeah, I wanted to ask you, um, since you're a coach
and you do all this, this greateducational stuff in chess with
videos and courses, I thoughtI'd ask you a couple of
questions, improvement-basedquestions from some Twitter
followers.
Okay, two questions from twoTwitter followers, all right,
the first one doesn't reallyhave a proper name, but this
person asks a really goodquestion nonetheless.
(33:17):
In the middle game, let'spretend I don't have any obvious
improving moves, how do youplan a strategy?
Or rather, what are some commonstrategies?
And then they go on to sayassume I'm developed castled
rooks on semi-open files, nopieces on the board are hanging
or in danger.
So I guess you're saying inthat situation, how do you plan
(33:39):
strategy?
Speaker 2 (33:40):
Yeah, I mean it's tough to talk about it vaguely
because every position is a bitdifferent, but I would say that
it's very rare you have asituation where you have no
pieces to improve.
I would say that even if you'vedeveloped pieces out and you're
castled and everything, thenature of the position will
often change so that you know togive you a very small example
(34:00):
for those who know, like theSpanish, as black or Roy Lopez,
you often have a situation where, as black, you play with like a
six and B five after yourKnights on C six, and once you
do this, your Knight on C six isoften misplaced and has and
should move.
So even though your Knightsperfectly developed your, it
blocks your C pawn.
It's not great.
So, like, the main moves in alot of Spanish positions involve
(34:25):
playing like net a five andthen moving the C pawn.
Or playing night B eight to Dseven even, which looks insane
to people who don't know aboutchess.
Um to beginners that that lookscrazy.
But the idea is you could stillimprove.
So often there are still piecesthat could be improved.
Um, if that's not the case, asmuch often you can look to where
(34:45):
do you have the advantage in aposition Like do you have a side
of the board that you'recontrolling a bit better or a
side of the board you can makeprogress?
A typical example would be takea typical Carlsbad pawn
structure right, and this wouldbe like white would have and
again, I'm trying to do it slow.
People can set it up if theywant, but basically pawns like
F2, e3, d4 against D5, c6, b7.
(35:08):
Very typical pawn structure andthe pawn structure determines
what your plan should be.
So, for example, in thatposition, white has plans of
playing B4, b5 to try to breakapart the black pawn chain.
White could play F3, e4 to tryto play at the center.
White can try to put a knighton e5 and erect a piece there.
There are different types ofplans and it's all kind of suit
(35:29):
based on where your pieces are,where your opponent's pieces are
, what's going on?
Um, and it's a very difficultthing to do, but I would say
usually there's a side of theboard where you're more able to
play on.
You want to ask where can youmake the most progress?
Can you gain space with yourpawns?
Can you do something else?
Sometimes it's a matter of justimproving in the center or
trying to expand in the center.
(35:49):
Other times, if you can't dothat much, you should be focused
on your opponent's ideas.
That's often where people getstuck.
They don't look at theiropponent's ideas.
Playing for b4, b5 you mightthink of playing a5 to disrupt
their idea.
So people you know thinkingabout your opponent's idea.
(36:10):
If you're ever stuck and can'tcome up with a great idea for
yourself, ask what your opponentwill do, and usually there will
be something.
It's very rare you have aposition where neither side can
do anything too great like it'squite rare.
So usually one of those thingswill at least lead you in a
direction that you know couldhelp.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Yeah, that's a fantastic answer.
I love that.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
I was worried I would go on too long.
But when it's general it'sactually tougher sometimes
because it's like there's everyspecific situation I want to
mention and I have to be like.
No, josh, like just give asimple example.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
No, that was excellent and going longer was
helpful because you had a greatfallback there, like in case you
know you can't find anything toimprove your own position or
pieces.
That was a great second thingto look for.
That's awesome.
The other question that I havefrom a Twitter follower and this
one is their Twitter handle isShawshank Chess.
They have a question from acoaching perspective.
I assume they are a coachthemselves, but I think it can
help the way they asked it.
I think it can be relevant evenfor people who would be the
student to hear your answer.
(37:12):
So they asked as a chess coach,is it fair to focus on helping
your intermediate students morein middle games and end games
than openings?
Speaker 2 (37:23):
It depends on the student.
You can't ever go by generalrules, I find, because
everyone's different.
In general, I think that peoplestudy end games too little and
openings too much that I cantell you.
I would say openings, it'seasier to learn them on your own
.
There are more resources, so bythat measure maybe, but there
are plenty of students I've hadand do have where they get bad
(37:45):
positions out of the opening allthe time.
It's a phase you have to fix.
You don't want people doingthat.
If people get good positions outof the opening or are doing
fine at the opening every gameand they don't have problems or
so many, then yeah, focusing onmiddle games and end games is
useful, but you have to go bythe student.
I just think general rules donot work.
Every student's a bit different.
(38:05):
I will say that a lot of peoplein certain rating ranges have
to work on the same things a lotof the time.
But you have to go by theindividual student because I
find that once, at least for me,like once I look at several of
their games, I can get a senseokay, this is where they're
going wrong, or at least more soright, and also when you just
(38:25):
hear them explain their moves.
You know like sometimes Iactually don't know from, I
think from the games they have aparticular problem.
But then when I hear theirthought process I'm like, oh no,
they have a different thingthey're doing.
So you really have to go by thestudent.
I don't think there's a greatgeneral rule for that sadly.
Speaker 1 (38:40):
Yeah, oh, that's an excellent answer.
The last topic I want to talkabout with you, josh, before
finishing with my final quickquestion segment before
finishing with my final quickquestion segment is just with
respect to your own competitiveOTB goals.
I'm always excited when titleplayers are still working
towards more things, because Ifeel like they've already
accomplished so much already.
So what are you working on withOTB goals for yourself?
Speaker 2 (39:02):
So that's kind of a good question, because I think
that what I experienced which Ithink is not not unusual is
after I became a gm.
It's like stay motivated isdifferent, right?
Um, because it was very cleareven when I was young and I'm
playing better and improving Iwasn't going to become like
world champion or somethingright like that was never really
in the cards, which you know isfine, right, but I would have
(39:26):
goals like making 2600, doingwhatever.
Uh, I would say at this point,I haven't played for several
years, both due to lots ofvarious reasons, right.
First it was just I was a bitburned out, so I took a break.
Then COVID happened when I wasgoing to come back, then some
personal stuff, whatever, and soI just didn't play for a long
(39:46):
time.
So now my goal is just to comeback and enjoy chess number one,
like just enjoy playing.
And also, I know I'm stillgoing to have like it's not even
about hitting a rating goal,but I'm going to have certain
things, like if I go and playand I'm blundering every game,
I'm going to be pretty annoyed,right, like there's certain
standards that you get used to,so to play to a certain standard
(40:08):
and try to improve right.
Like improving could be fixingmy opening repertoire, it could
be, you know, working onconverting one games, it could
be whatever, but just stilltrying to improve and do things.
I think at this point in mycareer, like shooting for a
rating goal would just not bevery smart because people like
every everything's different Nowpeople are underrated it just
(40:28):
doesn't.
I think that wouldn't be smart.
So I'm making my goals verypersonal and just to do with
enjoying and improving at thesame time, and if I can do those
things I'll be kind of happy.
I don't think I have aparticular goal as far as
winning a particular tournament,making it like sure, qualifying
for US Championship would benice, winning it would be nice.
But I'm realistic, right, likeI think that I did qualify for
(40:52):
US Championship by winning USOpen.
That would be an attainablething still, at least in theory.
But I have to be realistic aswell and I think the main thing
I would want to focus on,regardless of where I go, is
just I want to enjoy playing thetournaments I'm playing and you
know, and I want to still stillfeel like I have ways to
(41:15):
improve, like as I play, like Idon't want to play and not
improve either, if that makessense do you have a sense of
about how many tournaments you'dlike to go to in a year?
far fewer than when I was veryactive.
I can tell you that I think forme a lot of it is just I want
to go to tournaments where Ireally want to play.
Like I think when I was youngerit could be like two games a
day in like a sweaty hall andI'd be waiting for the parry
(41:37):
outside they'd repair and I'd bejust standing there.
I'm not going to nameorganizers by name, but like I
would kind of tolerate that.
And now I feel like it's likeall right, josh, for you this is
now practically vacationbecause, let's face it, I'm not
playing.
For even when I was younger Ihad a couple of years I made
some money because I did well,but that was never my living.
(41:58):
So now it's especially not myliving.
I don't have to do that right.
So a lot of it is choosing theevents I really want to play.
If I can get conditions, that'snice, but it's also just want
to be there.
It's kind of a nice atmosphere.
I just like it's an enjoyableplace to to play chess and also,
you know, an interestingtournament is nice, like it's a
good field, that kind of thing.
(42:19):
Um, but that's mostly my, myfocus.
So as far as how manytournaments you know.
I could see it being four, Icould see it being eight.
It really would depend on how.
I won't know until I startplaying again how I'm feeling
about it, but in general I wouldprioritize the quality of the
tournament and how I you knowhow the experience will be, more
(42:40):
than almost anything else itsounds like, since you said that
you are not particularly ratingfocused right now and getting
back into it, yeah, that yourmain motivation is is just
missing playing yeah, yeah, likeI mean I miss playing, like I
like to, I like to play.
I didn't take a break that longon purpose.
It wasn't.
It wasn't like this is what Iwanted to do.
(43:00):
It's just life happens, right,it's like you know and.
But I I do miss playing, I likeI like to play and, um, you
know it's.
It's definitely a stressfulthing at the same time, but it's
something that you know is partof who I am a bit right.
And getting back into it, Ihave to say even when I was
playing more actively, I wasn'tsuper rating focused.
(43:20):
Gm title was something I couldaim for.
Right, Very specific Rating waskind of like, yeah, 2600 would
be nice, but I wasn't.
Like you know, I don't findthose things motivating for
better or worse.
I just don't.
You know, that's kind of whereI'm at and enjoying playing.
I still want to get better.
You know playing strong playerscan be motivating, you know
being able to play with them anddo okay.
(43:40):
But yeah, I think it is harder,once you've made the title, to
whether you're motivated by thatstuff or not.
It's harder.
Speaker 1 (43:49):
Josh, I close all of my interviews with a segment of
a series of shorter questionsdesigned just to be for fun.
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Oh fun, that's going to be difficult Okay.
Yeah, mostly fun, mostly fun.
I'll try not to give likelong-winded answers to the quick
, rapid fire questions.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
No, no, it's fine.
The question is fast, youranswer doesn't have to be.
Speaker 2 (44:11):
It's like when people try to get me to play bullet
and I take 10 seconds on a move,they're like Josh, this is not
how it works.
Speaker 1 (44:16):
Right.
So first question in the seriesof questions knights or?
Speaker 2 (44:20):
bishops.
So of course I can't give asimple answer.
I would say that, consideringthat bishops are more often,
better.
I would say I tend to be aknight person, in that I would
value bishops, or the advantageof bishops, a bit less than most
other GMs in my experience.
I don't mind giving up the twobishops I'm a big Nimzo fan.
(44:44):
Giving up the bishops it's notlike I don't respect the bishops
, but I would say I like havingthe knights, I'm comfortable
with the knights, so I'll gowith knights Excellent.
It's not like I don't respectthe bishops, but I would say I
don't.
I like having the knights, I'mcomfortable with the knights, so
I'll go with knights Excellent.
What's your favorite timecontrol?
I don't know everyonespecifically, but definitely
classical.
I used to play fast when I wasyoung, but that gene went away
real fast and now it's like I'mlike a tortoise, so classical is
(45:14):
better.
Who?
Speaker 1 (45:15):
is your favorite player of all time, uh, so I
would go with paul karras.
Actually, oh, nice, nice.
I don't think I've had someonegive uh him as your answer yet,
so I like that yeah, he wasalways a favorite of mine.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
Obviously I, like you know, I was a big fan of tal,
like everyone, right, you know.
But he was the player who I Idon't want to say modeled my
style after, because I don'tthink it's a good idea to do
that and I don't think I woulddo that, but he was the like,
the guy whose games I was likeyeah, this is kind of how I want
to play, you know if you couldplay any great player of the
past who is no longer alive, whowould it be?
(45:42):
uh, I mean morphe would be thestock answer, right like come on
, who wouldn't want to playmorphe?
Speaker 1 (45:49):
that's's the most popular that has to be right.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
Like I would, I want to give something original.
Like I don't know who, I mean Icould give Karras, I guess, but
like I mean I don't know, maybe, maybe someone like Larson
would be fun.
Larson, awesome, there we go,edit that out.
That was not.
Uh, I, I do know who chessplayers are, I swear we'll cut
(46:12):
right to the part where you sayhis name.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
Great, um, if you could play any of the top
players in the world right now,who would it be?
Speaker 2 (46:21):
I.
I guess I have to be boring andsay carlson again.
I mean, like obviously I wouldlike to play him.
Um, I don't know like playinglive on would be cool too.
I like I just find his stylereally interesting.
I think he'd be fun to play him.
Um, I don't know like playinglive on would be cool too.
Speaker 1 (46:33):
I like I just find his style really interesting.
I think he'd be fun to play um.
So what do you like about uhlevon's?
I?
Speaker 2 (46:36):
don't know, he just has his own.
He kind of does things his ownway, like his own view about how
to approach openings, how toapproach tournaments, the way he
sees certain positions is justdifferent than everyone.
I just find it really reallyfascinating.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
I always have interesting um, what is your
favorite opening to play aswhite uh?
Speaker 2 (46:56):
so it's white or black.
Are we starting with?
Oh, we're starting with one.
Starting with white?
Um, let me see, I would saymaybe catalan.
I really like especially thelines where black gets kind of
greedy and then you're down.
I love being down upon, even I.
I keep my.
I used to play all gambits whenI was young, so I'm keeping my
roots and like, especially ifthey try to grab the c4 pawn and
I get this counter play and uh,yeah, I, I like that kind of
(47:19):
position these days, like thekind of more positional,
aggressive kind of pawn sackgambit roots.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
I love it.
Yeah, um, what's your favoriteopening as black?
Speaker 2 (47:30):
uh, I still have to say kind of Spanish, like in
general, I like it for bothsides, but like closed Roy Lopez
positions I always have enjoyed.
I mean, they're still a bitmysterious to me, but it's
something.
I've played a lot for, bothcolors and I find the positions
endlessly interesting, eventhough it's not particularly
fashionable at the moment.
Speaker 1 (47:48):
But I do like those lines.
What's your favorite way tostudy the game?
Speaker 2 (47:54):
It's one of those things where, because it's so
much easier to study on acomputer screen, it ends up
being what I do more often thanI would like.
But when I'm studying,especially on my own, like when
I'm studying with another person, having a board can be annoying
, but I like taking a board andwhatever book I'm working on.
More recently I was doing arerun of some 1953 Candidates
(48:15):
games, whether it's somethinglike that, whether it's going
through a book.
I was looking at Mickey Adams'book recently and I was enjoying
that.
So yeah, I would say, sittingat a board with a book and
slowly going through a game or aproblem is still my favorite
way to study.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
If you had to choose a career other than chess, what
would it be?
Speaker 2 (48:36):
I mean, I would go with one of my hobbies, I guess.
So at the moment I really liketo cook.
I don't think I could be anactual kitchen cook, that's the
problem, but I do like to cookand I really enjoy music, so
some kind of.
At the moment I'm learningguitar and stuff, but I'm not
particularly attached to that,it's more just, I like music in
(48:57):
general, so some sort ofmusician would be, I think,
really cool.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
I'm a huge music fan myself, so I'm resisting the
urge to go down a rabbit holeand talking about music.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
It's all good.
You can bore your listeners asmuch as you want.
Speaker 1 (49:14):
Final question.
All good, you can bore yourlisteners as much as you want.
Speaker 2 (49:16):
Uh, final question, if a chess genie existed and can
grant you any one chess wish,what would you wish for?
Uh, let's see any one wish.
I don't know like just nothanging my pieces like I'm like
everyone else really I'm aneveryman when it comes to that I
just I don't want to just hangsomething.
I would like to play a complexgame and have it end in a normal
way and not have it be just.
Well, Josh, you just blundereda rook in this variation.
(49:38):
What are you doing?
I would like to cut that out.
Speaker 1 (49:41):
I guess I don't know, I feel like, okay, this is
going to sound silly maybe, buthearing a GM say they don't want
to hang their pieces, I assumethat means like missing some
kind of like five move tactical.
You would assume that.
Speaker 2 (49:54):
But no, it's honestly like silly oversights in
general.
Now again, obviously, with eachlevel of silly oversights a
different thing.
But you know, and I noticed itbecause I'm not currently as
much in practice and I studywith someone who's in much
better practice than I am andand we're going over lines and
I'll do fine, but there'll be aperiod where we're calculating a
line and it could be a move,two, three, whatever, and I say
(50:17):
something and then he's quietand I'm like okay, I did
something and it was like Ieither misplaced a piece or did
something in the middle of aline.
And I think that in general,chess is a lot more interesting
when you're not making dumbmistakes.
So I think everyone makes dumbmistakes.
Just the question of what thatentails for Carlson is going to
(50:37):
be different than me, then it'sgoing to be different than a
club player, right?
Speaker 1 (50:42):
Right, well, josh, I had a fantastic conversation
with you.
I really enjoyed talking aboutall things chess.
You're doing great work withyour YouTube channel, with the
Chessable courses and, I'm sure,with your students too, and so,
yeah, I just want to say Ireally enjoyed our conversation
and had a fantastic time talkingwith you, so thank you for
being here.
Speaker 2 (50:59):
Yeah, thanks for inviting me and yeah, hope
people like it.
Speaker 1 (51:03):
Yeah, I'm sure they will, and thank you again.
Thanks for listening.
This has been a production ofmy business, adult Chess Academy
, and that has a website withthe same name.
If you want to look for it, youcan also find me being way too
active on Twitter by searchingmy username lona underscore
(51:24):
chess.
See you next week.
Hey, welcome to the chess experience On this show.
It's all about helping adultimprovers.
I want to make learning chesseasier for you to navigate, and
I also want you to have a morefun experience along the way.
I'm your host, daniel Lona, afellow chess amateur.
Let's get to it.
(00:25):
This show is sponsored bychesscom, the world's largest
chess community.
Chesscom recently launched anew way to learn from your games
with a feature called insights.
If you visit chesscom slashinsights, you can get detailed
stats and analysis in any of thetime controls you've played and
across any time period.
What kind of things can youlearn?
(00:50):
Well, you can learn.
What time of day do you playyour best morning, afternoon or
night?
What part of the game are youstrongest or weakest?
Opening, middle game or endgame?
Are you making more or lessmistakes than opponents at your
level?
You can find out all this greatinfo and much more at chesscom
slash insights.
Welcome to this week's episode.
Our guest today is AmericanGrandmaster Josh Friedel.
(01:12):
Josh learned to play chess whenhe was just three years old and
has had an impressive chessjourney ever since.
He became an IM in 2005 andthen a GM in 2009.
That same year, he tied forsixth place at the US Chess
Championship and later competedin the World Cup.
He's also been creating coursesfor many years and he also has
written regularly for Chess Life.
(01:33):
Most recently, he's publishedtwo chessable courses.
One is on opening mistakes andthe other is on middle game
mistakes.
We talked about the latter inthis episode at length and Josh
gives some great advice on howto avoid common middle game
mistakes for both beginners andintermediates.
On that subject, I'll be doing achessable course giveaway of
(01:54):
one of Josh's courses this weekon Twitter.
It will be on the one I justreferenced the full video
version of his course onavoiding middle game mistakes
and I've personally gone throughsome of it and it's fantastic.
Josh is great at explainingchess concepts in a clear and
direct way and, even though itis aimed at beginners, it is
(02:15):
incredibly helpful forintermediates.
I like to think I'm anintermediate, I went through it
and I was learning a ton.
So to win this course, followme on Twitter at Lona,
underscore chess.
I also have a link in the shownotes to my Twitter profile in
case you didn't remember exactlyhow to spell my Twitter handle,
so you could just go and clickon that link in the show notes
and follow me there.
(02:35):
Tomorrow I'll post details onthe video course giveaway for
his course on avoiding middlegame mistakes.
Okay, wrapping up this episode'spreview, I also talked with
Josh about his coaching career.
He answers a couple ofimprovement questions from my
followers and we also discussedwhy he wants to return to OTB
competition.
Here's my interview with Josh.
I hope you enjoy it.
(02:55):
Hi, josh, I'm excited to chatwith you today.
I know you told me in advanceyou're a little under the
weather, but other than that,how are you doing?
I'm doing pretty well.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Yeah, my pleasure, very excited to chat with you,
been impressed with yourchessable courses and the work
you've done there because, well,I mean, just on the face of it
it's already it's really coolstuff.
But in the run-up to ourinterview today I had a chance
to go through some of them andjust dive into more of your
teaching style and what you'reoffering.
I just think it's fantasticstuff.
(03:26):
So I'm excited to talk aboutthat and everything else.
Chess with you today, yeah,should be good.
So one of the things thatstands out to me about what you
do and what you've done is withrespect to your coaching.
This may be my own sillythought in my head, I don't know
, but typically when I think ofa GM coaching students, I
imagine them coaching people2000 on up, just because they,
(03:47):
as a coach, are so advanced.
But, that said, I love when aGM takes their expertise to help
club players as well as you do.
So, yeah, I just want to knowabout how this all unfolded for
you.
Can you talk about yourcoaching career?
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Sure, and, yeah, I appreciate you going through my
courses and stuff.
It's always actually veryflattering to me because I spend
time on them and I try to makethem good, but I'm always like,
are they really good?
So I'm glad that you've likedthem.
So I started coaching when Iwas in my teens I would say like
fairly young.
I was probably like 2300s, butI had very little teaching
(04:23):
experience.
Needless to say, I was not agreat coach at first, not as in,
I was probably like 2300s, butI had very little teaching
experience.
Needless to say, I was not agreat coach at first, not as in.
I was bad, but, as in, I didn'treally know how to coach.
I was a very good player and Icould convey information.
I wasn't bad for my students,but I didn't really know how to
properly coach people yet.
You know, because I'm juststarting right, sure, but then
(04:48):
it's something that because,unless you're like very, very
top player which I never quitewas like you're not going to
make a living by playing.
So coaching is something if youwant to do chess, that's
something you have to do.
But it is still something thatI strove to become better at and
at some point it became just avery regular part of what I do
and I really enjoy it, like atthis point.
(05:08):
It's like at the beginningthere were certain parts where I
was like, well, I'd rather beplaying all the time and
studying, which you know is nicebut now it's like I like
obviously playing and studyingand that kind of thing.
But I've gotten to really enjoythe coaching quite a bit and
yeah, I mean it's like a good.
It's a good thing that I'm gladI started doing.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Yeah, yeah, that's fantastic.
So I'm curious about, like, whoyou have coached over the years
, because you know you've saidyou've coached since you were in
your teens.
Yeah, so you've been doing itsome years now.
Have you always coached atypical rating range?
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Ah, yeah, I remember Sorry, the question about the
2000 plus thing and all of this,right, yeah, I mean, like when
you're trying to coach it's notlike, especially when I started
I wasn't.
It wasn't like I was gettingtons of requests, right, so I
wasn't particularly good atpromoting myself.
Still, that's not a strength ofmine.
So you know, I would kind ofsay yes when people wanted me to
(06:02):
coach, coach them regardless oftheir level.
But I would say in general thatI don't really care about the
level so much Like I enjoycoaching.
You know, usually I don't coachquite beginners like people who
are just learning the moves isvery rare.
But like, say, from noviceplayers to even like other
grandmasters sometimes, like Ilike coaching all of them.
(06:23):
They're all kind of differentand they all offer their own
challenges.
But it's definitely something Iwas always willing to coach
kind of any level, partiallyjust for practical reasons,
right, like I didn't get thatmany requests.
So you know I would coachwhoever really wanted, you know
was interested in me and wantedto work with me.
But it's also something that Ireally don't dislike coaching
any level Like to me they allhave their own challenges and
(06:46):
interesting parts to it.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Is it easy at this point for you to shift gears to
like the level that you'recoaching?
You know, like, say, in a givenday, for example, if you were
coaching someone who was just1600 and then your next student
is 2300 or something, or 2200,whatever.
It's a different style ofcoaching, right?
I?
Speaker 2 (07:03):
think, yeah, it could be a bit jarring if I go from
one to the other, but you, youget used to doing that.
Um, I would say in general,like one of the things that I
tend to do is I do aim high asfar as the level of difficulty
of what I present.
Like I'm always worried aboutgiving whether it's like when
I'm going over and askingquestions or whether I'm giving
(07:23):
them positions I'm alwaysworried it will be too easy.
So, if anything, shoot above.
But it definitely takes someadapting, not just to the levels
, but everyone's personality isdifferent.
Learned the game almost kind ofrecently and it was really
getting into it.
And then I coach you knowjuniors who are, you know,
(07:47):
really, really strong already.
And then I coach you knowpeople middle-aged, who are 2100
, right, like.
So they're all differentpersonalities as well as levels,
and if you try to coach themall in the exact same way, it's
not going to work out too well,you know Sure.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
So you said, I think, when we talked beforehand, that
, like right now, you typicallyteach in the range of 1600 to
2100.
Like that's like the bell ofthe bell curve where your
students land right now.
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Yeah, and it's not by choice, it's just where they
happen to be at the moment.
I've had periods where I'vecoached largely 22 to 2400.
I've had periods with moreunder 1200, even like it really
depends, but right now I'd saythe past bunch of years,
especially like that, tends tobe the the range of people who
seek me out.
I would say 16 to 21 2200.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
That range.
I know you mentioned that selfpromotion.
You didn't feel like was astrength, but maybe slightly
awkwardly, asked you to do thatright now.
Feel like was a strength butI'll maybe slightly awkwardly
ask you to do that right now.
Um, which is um, get readyeveryone.
Uh, yeah, like what?
What do you feel is like one ofyour strengths as a coach?
Because I I feel like coacheswho've been doing it for a while
(08:55):
typically pride themselves likeat least one thing that they
feel you know they stand out onas a coach um, let me see, I
mean I would say that, um, justjust as coaches go like, having
a coach who is a grandmaster canbe useful even at lower levels.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Just having a coach who's like a grandmaster as
opposed to like even 2200, thereare fewer things that you have
to relearn, um, because you knowlike, let's say, like a 2200
doesn't understand the gamequite as well, generally
speaking, right.
So there are going to becertain things that they will
teach that maybe aren't quiteaccurate, even if they're great
coaches, right, there are plentyof 2200s or even below who are
(09:34):
excellent coaches, right, butthey don't quite understand the
game as as well.
So there are always certainthings that you have to relearn,
which isn't the biggest deal,but when you are having a gm
coach, that doesn't happen asoften.
You know what I mean, yeah, sothere is an advantage of that.
As far as me, personally, I'mhonestly like and again you can
see why I'm so successful atself-promotion I can't think of
(09:55):
anything in particular that I'dbe like.
Yeah, like, I love showing endgames.
I know, I like working on endgames if a student wants to come
to me, yeah, I want to learnabout end games.
I tend to, you know, be able toshow a lot of things and be
able to do that um, so I'd saylike, like that would be like a
specialty, I, I guess.
Um, but I think a lot of mystrength is just the willingness
(10:17):
to change, based on the student, quite a bit like I have
certain routines I have withdifferent students.
Like my lessons do not look thesame.
Um, there are a lot of coacheswho I've known who kind of their
their lessons like they couldbe even quite good coaches, but
their lessons tend to look thesame, regardless of who the
student is.
Is then, all right, you want togo over your games?
All right, let's go, let's dothis.
(10:38):
And it's like they have kind ofa set thing, whereas for me
it's kind of I'll a set thing,whereas for me it's kind of I'm
fine coming up with what I wantto do, and then if my student
has something they really wantto do, I can do it.
I think the flexibility of thatmaybe is a strength I have, so
this may be the best I couldcome up with.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
No, that's a great answer.
Yeah, that's definitely astrength.
That's not.
I mean, that's very valuablebut not very common always.
So that's that's excellent.
So I'd like to dive intotalking about your chess level
courses now.
Yeah, and based on what wetalked about that, you know you
mostly teach intermediates on up.
You know this course that youcreated is still aimed at
(11:17):
beginners and I'm curious ifthat was the most you had done,
like to really just focus on howto teach beginners outside of
just like an occasional studentor two yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So I would say like it's not like.
So I've interacted with plentyof beginners, right, I've taught
in schools before.
Uh, I've done like enough thatI know like I'm at least
familiar enough with teachingbeginners.
Um, it's something which I'vedone a fair amount of and I'm
not at all uncomfortable with it.
So, yeah, I mean, I don't thinkit's so much that I think that
(11:50):
the video courses I've donevideo courses probably since mid
2000s, so I've been doing a lotof them and I haven't done as
many videos as some people whodo like YouTube videos all the
time.
But I've done a fair share, butI've done very few just aimed
at beginners.
So the main thing that I wasworried about and nervous about
is to make sure it's aimed well.
But, as I told you, I don'tlike making things too easy.
(12:13):
So I did put in some positionswhich are still from beginner
games but which are a little bittrickier.
So I thought that a beginnerbecause it's a choice between
two moves a beginner can likelysolve it, but that even a more
advanced player like yourselfwould still be challenged a
little bit, because to actuallysee the whole solution is not
(12:33):
easy, even if deciding betweenthe two moves is relatively
simple, and my aim was so thateven, like you know again,
players who are on theintermediate range or lower
intermediate range could stillpick up a few things, even
though it's aimed at beginners.
My main hope is that beginnersstill get plenty out of it, but
that I actually don't mindhearing that.
You know, slightly strongerplayers can also be challenged
(12:55):
by a few positions.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Yeah, and I think it's worth mentioning that
because I think a majority of myaudience is in that range that
I'm in as an intermediate clubplayer.
And, to add to what you'resaying, when I was going through
your course, even if I pickedthe correct answer, where you
often pose like two options evenif I picked the correct answer,
your explanation still was veryhelpful because you would
(13:21):
highlight lines that maybe I hadmissed and I was like, oh,
maybe I didn't fully understandwhy this was the right choice,
and then just even just thelittle tips that you give along
the way about how to understandthe position better.
you know are all insights that Imostly didn't have anyhow.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Oh, glad to hear that .
Speaker 1 (13:38):
So you know, just yeah, seeing it through your
eyes, in other words, isobviously a lot more
illuminating than seeing itthrough my own and understanding
chess.
It's a very helpful course, Ithink, even for intermediates,
in fact.
Let's talk about one of them inparticular.
But just as a preface, I wantto mention that you have two
courses published so far.
Both have the main title ofbeginner mistakes and how to
(14:00):
avoid them.
One focuses on openings rightnow.
The other focuses on middlegame mistakes.
I know more are coming, butthat's current as of the time of
this recording, and I want totalk about the middle game
course a bit.
I'm curious how you pick thedifferent categories of mistakes
in the middle game to cover.
You have tactical, attacking,consolidation, positional and
(14:22):
awareness as the categories ofmistakes that you could make.
So how did you decide on thoseversus any others?
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Yeah, I mean honestly .
So my process is I get themistakes first.
I want a collection of mistakesfirst and then I have to
categorize them in some way.
When they're beginner mistakes,a lot of the times they do
involve something like droppinga piece or something like that,
and it's hard.
But I don't want to have everycategory be don't hang your
pieces right, like that would be.
(14:49):
People would be like why am Ibuying this course, right?
So I wanted to categorize itsomewhat and those are the
categories I came up with.
That, at least to me, madesense.
So, even though you're still alot of the mistakes are still
kind of all right, don't giveanything away or don't do
anything.
There are definitely mistakeswhich I would say are yeah,
don't play a weakening pawn,move right or don't you know.
(15:10):
And I did try to includemistakes like that, which
generally are not what I wouldcall even beginner mistakes,
like there are mistakes thatmore advanced players can make.
But I think having a beginnerget a jumpstart on why these
moves are bad and what to try tofix it is still a good thing.
So I kind of organized it byyou know the kind of mistakes I
(15:31):
saw often and then I tried tomake it so that there are at
least some distinct things,right, but I really did it by
choosing the mistakes first.
Right, I picked the.
I went through a lot ofbeginner games way too many and
I went through and I pickedmoments which I thought were
quite good.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Yeah, that's awesome, and I mean some of those things
I've just not heard of, as Iguess you could say categories
of mistakes like consolidationor attacking, just as a category
.
Like I could, I could, you know, envision scenarios where my
attack was not successful, but Inever thought of it as, oh, as
a player, I struggle in makingtoo many attacking mistakes.
(16:14):
You know, like it just wasn't.
I never saw it that way, so Iappreciate that it's actually
funny.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
You say that because I I have a student of mine and
he's, like you know, kind of anolder guy.
He really understands the gamewell.
He's like 2100 something, right, uh, but he understands the
game on a very high level.
And I was looking through hisgames and at some point I said
to him that like yeah, so youshould really do more mating
patterns, just like solve morecheckmates.
And what he told me later wasthat was like the most useful
(16:42):
thing I anyone had told him.
Like he improved more from justdoing mating patterns than
anything else.
And it's not like I told himsomething magical, right.
He basically said it was kindof a joke, like yeah, nothing
else you told me was useful, butthat was useful and it was
really.
It's amazing how oftensomething like that is important
, like people just don't knowtheir mating patterns.
In my lesson this morning therewere at least a couple of times
(17:05):
where I was waiting and I'mteaching like really talented,
nice kid, right, but he wasstruggling to see like it was an
end game and there was a matingpattern which is common.
He was struggling to see it andit's very clear that, like, if
you don't practice thesepatterns, it's very difficult.
So I did see that a lot in thebeginner games and learning how
to checkmate your opponent isjust an important thing to do.
(17:25):
That was why that category kindof came up for me, and it's
funny because I see it atdifferent levels, not just
beginner.
Yeah, I absolutely would nothave expected that to be an area
of weakness, for positionalunderstanding, for 2100 is
insane, like crazy good, butthere's a reason why he's 2100.
(17:47):
One of them is like, yeah, yougot to learn how to checkmate
your opponent, buddy, and itsounds kind of dumb, but it's
actually very important, right,it's an important skill, yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Yeah, for sure.
So I want to talk a little bitabout that chapter on
consolidation, because I thinkyou talk about something there
that I think deserves to bediscussed more often, which is
the challenge of converting aone position.
Yeah, you dive into that morein the course, but I'm curious
to hear just some quick thoughtsfrom you on why is this so
(18:18):
challenging for peopleconverting a one position?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I think the challenging part of it is that
people either over adapt or theyunder adapt because they're
like, oh, I have a winningposition and then either they
relax too much and allowcounterplay or they are like, oh
my gosh, I have to just try totrade everything and they make
just bad moves.
So, learning the balance of,yeah, you still want to improve
your pieces and play justnatural good moves, but there
(18:40):
are certain ways you lean, like,if you can simplify the
position when you're up a piece,the odds of you, you know it's
a great way to try to win.
You want to keep the gamesimpler.
But a lot of the times I getpositions where you know a
student of mine this happenswith me quite frequently where a
student of mine wants to tradeQueens and I'm like, why are you
trading Queens?
You're mating them.
Like, why are we trading Queens?
(19:01):
I know you're up material, butwhy are we trading queens?
I know you're up material, butjust checkmate.
What's the problem?
So it's kind of.
I think people either over adapt, like they just try to trade
everything and that's all theydo and that's the only function
of their moves.
It sounds kind of silly, butthey have it ingrained at a
young age.
You have to trade pieces whenyou're up material, and that can
get in the way in a lot ofpositions.
And then you have people whojust relax too much, right, they
(19:23):
don't worry about it, they,they end up just letting the
game spiral out of control, andit's a really hard thing for any
level really.
It's one of the hardest thingsto do, uh, is to convert to one
position, and I think it'sbecause you have to adapt just
the right amount, um, and that'sthe hard part of it right?
Speaker 1 (19:41):
that's a great insight on the the, the other
end of the spectrum we justtalked about.
Do you think that's a functionof just being overconfident in
the game, feeling like, well,there's not much, I need to do
anymore, just sometimes, uh, itcould definitely be, can be that
.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Um, other times it's more just like they worked hard
earlier because they had tofigure out stuff and then, once
they get the winning position,it's a natural thing to kind of
like oh, now the hard part'sover, whereas oftentimes the
hard part kind of begins right.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Yeah, yeah, exactly so it's.
It's kind of a natural reaction.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
I find that people have, um, and everyone has their
own sense of this.
I find that every student'sdifferent and as far as like
where they relax, like somepeople relax when it's like, oh,
now I just have an extra piecein an end game I'll win without
thinking.
Or oh, now I just have like areally big positional edge and
nothing could happen to me.
Like there's always differentparts where people relax and
(20:35):
it's it's individual to eachplayer is what I find that's a
great explanation.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
You mentioned how one of the mistakes in
consolidation can be justthinking that all you need to do
is trade, trade pieces.
Yeah, I see that all the time.
Uh, yeah, until just your, yourmaterial advantage remains and
nothing else.
Why is that not enough?
Speaker 2 (20:55):
uh, it's just, there are so many times when people
forget they're playing, likeit's still playing a chess
position.
Right, if you have an amazingpiece, like if you have some
like monster knight cemented onD6 and you're like, well, I'm up
material, I should trade it foran awful CA bishop, that's
never moving, it's still a badmove, right.
Like you're still worseningyour position.
It's, and it's just somethingthat people struggle because
(21:19):
it's so ingrained, like fromearly coaching or early advice,
you want to trade pieces whenyou're up.
It actually gets in your way.
Like you end up playing movesthat are unfavorable.
You end up spending two orthree tempe to seek out a trade
while your opponent's improvingtheir pieces.
Who do you think is going tobenefit from that?
You know Right, and I thinkpeople forget they still have to
play chess.
(21:39):
Like they still have to improvetheir pieces, they still have
to do good things.
Like.
Trading is kind of one of thosethings where it should be nice
but it's not like.
All right, I'm just going toseek out all the trades in the
position.
You know like.
Let me put it this way let'ssay you have the starting
position and you have an extrarook against gm, just for
example, right, do you thinkyou're gonna have a lot of
(21:59):
success if you're like, well,I'll just trade off all the
pieces and then I'll win?
Speaker 1 (22:03):
not.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Not against the GM, no like this is not a good
strategy, right, it's a reallybad strategy.
Like you should play kind ofnormal right.
Now it's an exaggeratedscenario, but a lot of positions
are like that.
You have to kind of play normalgood moves most of the time,
but you have a sort of leaningtowards simple positions.
You don't want to make itcomplicated.
Simple positions, you don'twant to make it complicated.
(22:26):
You have a leaning towardstrading off material to make the
game simpler when you're upmaterial.
Right, you want to think morelean than all.
Right, this is my primary goalin the position, because most
positions you got to improveyour pieces.
That's just the way chess works.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Right, yeah, that was a great explanation.
So yeah, like I mentioned, inaddition to the middle game
course that you have right nowin Chessable, you also have one
related to opening mistakes.
What are the future coursesthat you plan on doing with
Chessable?
Speaker 2 (22:50):
So at the moment I'm working on.
Obviously, getting a cold whenthis happens is perfect, but I'm
working on recording the endgame version now, so beginner
mistakes and avoiding them inthe end game.
So basically the end gameversion of the other two.
So it was definitely a muchharder course to record, just
(23:12):
because not a lot of beginnergames get to endgames a lot of
the time, and when they do,sometimes one side's up like
five pieces.
So I had to change the natureof the course a little bit.
But I still think I'm hoping atleast it will be very
beneficial for, you know, forboth beginners and lower
intermediate players, and a lotof it also is just filling in
some end game knowledge too, um,and stuff like that.
(23:33):
But it's um, that's currentlywhat I'm working on, Um, and
then at some point I'll, I'll,I'll work.
I'm sure they want, you knowthey they tend to like opening
courses.
It's just what.
What they tend to like openingcourses, it's just what people
do.
So I might try one, but I'dwant to do something that's a
little different, not kind ofthe same.
So I'm still kind of thinkingabout that, but at the moment
I'm working on the endgamecourse Before.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
I talk about your book.
You said something earlier thatI just wanted to follow up on a
little bit.
You said you had been doingcourses since, I think you said,
like late 2000s Is that right?
I think mid.
Where have you done thesecourses?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
like um.
So I think the first one I didwas chess lecturecom, when they
first started coming out withcourses um, I think I was one of
the early ones to do them.
Um, this was when there weren'tlike infinite chess videos out
there, right, um, like Iactually had an experience that
was both really nice and alsoreally kind of terrifying, where
(24:27):
there was this woman who is, Ithink, she, I think she's a
college student or justgraduated college and she told
me yeah, I grew up watching Donot tell me this, I'm not that
old, but anyways, a painfulcompliment.
Yeah, kind of, it was nice, butit was also like, oh my
goodness, but yeah, it was.
(24:50):
So I would say I did it forchess lecture.
And then I'm trying to rememberwhere all the websites I ended
up doing them for.
But there are quite a few.
I don't remember all of them,honestly.
I just know that I was doingthem basically from like 2006 or
whatever to now, essentially.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
So, yeah, let's talk about your book.
I know you're working on one.
What's the topic?
Projected release date oh no,yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
So it's one of those things where it's something I've
been working on a while, justfree time, and I would say the
last six months have been, forvarious personal reasons and
various, just traveling to workand doing other things.
I've just have not had thattime and working on Chessable
courses, especially this lastone, has been quite time
consuming, which is fine.
So the book kind of takes abackseat, essentially focusing
(25:41):
on things that earn you a livingright now.
I have to prioritize.
You know, focusing on thingsthat you know earn you a living
right now I have to prioritize.
So, um, you know it's kind oftaking a back seat, but in
general it's kind of it's aimedto be like a general improving.
So the idea is that I take eachchess skill and I try to break
them apart.
So essentially I takecalculation, for example, and I
(26:02):
break it apart into differentgroups, so like, okay, this is
how you look for your tempomoves.
And then you have positionswhere you practice just looking
for tempo moves, that's it.
Then I say, all right, this ishow you look ahead with your
tempo moves.
Then you practice just lookingahead seeing all the tempo moves
.
Then here's how you visualize aposition, right.
So this is the position,several moves from now, and I
(26:24):
call it kind of dynamicvisualization, where it's
basically not just countingmaterial in a future position,
but being able to say what arethe tempo moves here, what are
the checks, captures, threats,what's going on, who's better
there, and being able to see theposition in a clear way.
And I basically because, whenyou think about calculation,
it's a skill that is made up ofa bunch of things jumbled right,
(26:47):
so I try to take them apart andwork on them.
One at a time is the idea.
That's amazing.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
I love that.
That sounds fantastic.
I mean, I'm really excitedabout the book and the only sad
news now is knowing that-.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Yeah, yeah, now it may never you know, 20 years
I'll be like walking around witha cane and finally promote my
book.
No, I'm hoping it's something Iget back to.
It's just when I have a lot ofstuff going on.
It definitely takes a backseat,sure, but I would say like, at
the moment I have a lot ofwriting, like I've written a lot
.
I like to write in generalactually, even though it's not
something I do for a living,exactly Like I like to write.
(27:22):
So I did a fair amount of thewriting.
The hard part is sourcing a lotof the positions because the
nature of my book, a lot of thepositions I have to invent, um,
so that takes some time.
And then others I have tosource from my material, which
is uh kind of vast, obviously,but it's like it takes quite a
bit of time to do that.
So I'd say that that's going tobe the the tricky part of doing
(27:43):
everything, um.
But yeah, I'm hoping it haslike a little something that you
know a lot of players can use.
It's mainly aimed atintermediate players, but I do
have a beginner section actuallywhere I do a bunch of
activities that I would do with.
You know, like I did thisactually when I was like a long
time ago, when I was showing myniece how to play, like I would
put a knight in the middle ofthe board and say, show me how
it moves, and that kind of thing, and I give some kind of
(28:04):
exercises that I think forbeginners would be very useful
and things like that this wouldbe your first book.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Yeah yeah, just curious because what the
experience difference is for youbetween writing a book and
creating a video course?
Is one easier or harder?
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Well, I've done so many more videos.
I've never written a book right, so I like to write in general.
So I've never written a bookright, so I like to write in
general.
So I've done articles on chess.
I like to just do regularwriting as well, but it's more
of a like.
It's not something I do for aliving, it's more of just
something I like to do.
So I enjoy the writing, butit's definitely not something
I'm.
You know, I've done as manytimes, obviously, like the chess
videos I've done so many thatit's a little bit easier just
(28:41):
because I know kind of how toput one together and what it
should look like and obviouslyI'm not saying they're all
perfect, but at least I knowkind of how to do it Whereas a
book is like a huge undertaking,at least for me.
I'm amazed by people whopublish all these books.
I'm like how do you actually dothis and have a life outside of
making your book?
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Maybe they wonder how you publish so many videos.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Maybe.
I mean, I think also part of itis like it went from a course,
from a video or, sorry, a bookthat was going to be about kind
of like tips and tricks to likelet me deconstruct all of chess,
and I don't know why I did that.
It's just what happened.
So now I'm kind of going withit but, uh, I'm hoping at least
it'll, like it'll come out atsome point and it'll have things
that you know, if you don't usethe whole, hoping at least
(29:26):
it'll come out at some point andit'll have things that you know
, if you don't use the wholebook, at least some things that
people will find useful.
Sure.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Yeah well, I'm cheering it on because it sounds
like a fantastic book.
I love the topics, I love yourapproach.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Yeah, yeah, so I'm hoping it'll work out.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Yeah, so you have a YouTube channel that covers a
lot of improvement topics,ranging from how to create
counterplay to how to create amating attack.
Yeah, lots of great topicsthere.
How do you choose what tocreate for a video Like?
What's the inspiration for them?
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Usually it's kind of I see a position or I see a game
that's being played and I'mlike, oh, that'll be a cool idea
, you know.
Or I see a type of mistake froma lot of students that they
make repeatedly, or a type ofmistake from a lot of students
that they make repeatedly, or atype of thing that I think would
be like generally useful, and Iusually aim it again at kind of
intermediate.
Um, although it's actuallyreally funny.
(30:14):
One of the other times I had aformer student of mine who's now
a gm, was like yeah, so I waslooking at your video and I saw
this king of pottingham.
I'm like you were watching myvideo.
I was like what's happening?
But yeah, in general it'susually like I get inspired by
like following live events or by, you know, just seeing a type
of mistake made frequently, andthen I kind of have different
(30:38):
examples to kind of highlight it, and a lot of the idea is that
it's often from games of like GMgames or top player whether
it's top player or you knowother GM games or you know, at
the slightly lower level, butit's aimed to show how this type
of mistake can actually be likedissected at like, you know,
obviously at lower level it'smade with greater frequency, but
(30:59):
it's kind of this is what thismistake looks like, kind of
thing.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Well, I mean I appreciate the quality of topics
that you brought up and taughtin your YouTube channel.
I mean it feels like you figureout topics that just haven't
been covered a thousand times byother.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
That's also something I try to do, like I try to
think of things that are, youknow, not out there.
Like I don't watch a lot ofchess YouTube, really, but I try
to cover things that aren't youknow as typical, I guess.
So I want it to be my own thing, and if people like it there,
they don't, it's fine, but it'skind of I want it to be its own
thing, you know right, right,yeah, and I appreciate it's not
(31:36):
like just oh, have you triedthis crazy opening track?
yeah, yeah, that's why I can'twatch chess youtube.
There are some things where I'mseeing it, I'm like, oh god,
there are thousands of peoplewatching this.
This is all these, all thesepeople, it's.
It's kind of like watching,like you know, a psychologist
watching people go insane.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
It's like, okay, I have to now, like you know, help
these people right, right, uh,quick aside you, you mentioned
casually, as you were talkingabout your channel, that you had
a student who is now a gm.
That's really impressive.
What rating or level were theyat when they started with you?
Speaker 2 (32:11):
um, so, yeah, I've had, I've had a few students who
either became jabs I've workedwith sub gms, I've worked with
jabs who are stronger than me,right, like, and obviously it's
not like I'm teaching themeverything, but I could still
help them with certain things,right, right, and then uh, but I
would say I taught him, I'veknown him since he was, uh,
quite young, um, so I, I, youknow, I interacted with him a
(32:32):
little and then I startedteaching him when he was in his
like early teens, and then Itaught him, like maybe six,
seven, eight years ago as well,when he was like just becoming a
GM kind of um, you know, and uh, yeah, now he watches my videos
out of sheer boredom, I'massuming.
So I don't know.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Too hard on yourself.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Yeah, it's all good.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Yeah, I wanted to ask you, um, since you're a coach
and you do all this, this greateducational stuff in chess with
videos and courses, I thoughtI'd ask you a couple of
questions, improvement-basedquestions from some Twitter
followers.
Okay, two questions from twoTwitter followers, all right,
the first one doesn't reallyhave a proper name, but this
person asks a really goodquestion nonetheless.
(33:17):
In the middle game, let'spretend I don't have any obvious
improving moves, how do youplan a strategy?
Or rather, what are some commonstrategies?
And then they go on to sayassume I'm developed castled
rooks on semi-open files, nopieces on the board are hanging
or in danger.
So I guess you're saying inthat situation, how do you plan
(33:39):
strategy?
Speaker 2 (33:40):
Yeah, I mean it's tough to talk about it vaguely
because every position is a bitdifferent, but I would say that
it's very rare you have asituation where you have no
pieces to improve.
I would say that even if you'vedeveloped pieces out and you're
castled and everything, thenature of the position will
often change so that you know togive you a very small example
(34:00):
for those who know, like theSpanish, as black or Roy Lopez,
you often have a situation where, as black, you play with like a
six and B five after yourKnights on C six, and once you
do this, your Knight on C six isoften misplaced and has and
should move.
So even though your Knightsperfectly developed your, it
blocks your C pawn.
It's not great.
So, like, the main moves in alot of Spanish positions involve
(34:25):
playing like net a five andthen moving the C pawn.
Or playing night B eight to Dseven even, which looks insane
to people who don't know aboutchess.
Um to beginners that that lookscrazy.
But the idea is you could stillimprove.
So often there are still piecesthat could be improved.
Um, if that's not the case, asmuch often you can look to where
(34:45):
do you have the advantage in aposition Like do you have a side
of the board that you'recontrolling a bit better or a
side of the board you can makeprogress?
A typical example would be takea typical Carlsbad pawn
structure right, and this wouldbe like white would have and
again, I'm trying to do it slow.
People can set it up if theywant, but basically pawns like
F2, e3, d4 against D5, c6, b7.
(35:08):
Very typical pawn structure andthe pawn structure determines
what your plan should be.
So, for example, in thatposition, white has plans of
playing B4, b5 to try to breakapart the black pawn chain.
White could play F3, e4 to tryto play at the center.
White can try to put a knighton e5 and erect a piece there.
There are different types ofplans and it's all kind of suit
(35:29):
based on where your pieces are,where your opponent's pieces are
, what's going on?
Um, and it's a very difficultthing to do, but I would say
usually there's a side of theboard where you're more able to
play on.
You want to ask where can youmake the most progress?
Can you gain space with yourpawns?
Can you do something else?
Sometimes it's a matter of justimproving in the center or
trying to expand in the center.
(35:49):
Other times, if you can't dothat much, you should be focused
on your opponent's ideas.
That's often where people getstuck.
They don't look at theiropponent's ideas.
Playing for b4, b5 you mightthink of playing a5 to disrupt
their idea.
So people you know thinkingabout your opponent's idea.
(36:10):
If you're ever stuck and can'tcome up with a great idea for
yourself, ask what your opponentwill do, and usually there will
be something.
It's very rare you have aposition where neither side can
do anything too great like it'squite rare.
So usually one of those thingswill at least lead you in a
direction that you know couldhelp.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Yeah, that's a fantastic answer.
I love that.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
I was worried I would go on too long.
But when it's general it'sactually tougher sometimes
because it's like there's everyspecific situation I want to
mention and I have to be like.
No, josh, like just give asimple example.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
No, that was excellent and going longer was
helpful because you had a greatfallback there, like in case you
know you can't find anything toimprove your own position or
pieces.
That was a great second thingto look for.
That's awesome.
The other question that I havefrom a Twitter follower and this
one is their Twitter handle isShawshank Chess.
They have a question from acoaching perspective.
I assume they are a coachthemselves, but I think it can
help the way they asked it.
I think it can be relevant evenfor people who would be the
student to hear your answer.
(37:12):
So they asked as a chess coach,is it fair to focus on helping
your intermediate students morein middle games and end games
than openings?
Speaker 2 (37:23):
It depends on the student.
You can't ever go by generalrules, I find, because
everyone's different.
In general, I think that peoplestudy end games too little and
openings too much that I cantell you.
I would say openings, it'seasier to learn them on your own
.
There are more resources, so bythat measure maybe, but there
are plenty of students I've hadand do have where they get bad
(37:45):
positions out of the opening allthe time.
It's a phase you have to fix.
You don't want people doingthat.
If people get good positions outof the opening or are doing
fine at the opening every gameand they don't have problems or
so many, then yeah, focusing onmiddle games and end games is
useful, but you have to go bythe student.
I just think general rules donot work.
Every student's a bit different.
(38:05):
I will say that a lot of peoplein certain rating ranges have
to work on the same things a lotof the time.
But you have to go by theindividual student because I
find that once, at least for me,like once I look at several of
their games, I can get a senseokay, this is where they're
going wrong, or at least more soright, and also when you just
(38:25):
hear them explain their moves.
You know like sometimes Iactually don't know from, I
think from the games they have aparticular problem.
But then when I hear theirthought process I'm like, oh no,
they have a different thingthey're doing.
So you really have to go by thestudent.
I don't think there's a greatgeneral rule for that sadly.
Speaker 1 (38:40):
Yeah, oh, that's an excellent answer.
The last topic I want to talkabout with you, josh, before
finishing with my final quickquestion segment before
finishing with my final quickquestion segment is just with
respect to your own competitiveOTB goals.
I'm always excited when titleplayers are still working
towards more things, because Ifeel like they've already
accomplished so much already.
So what are you working on withOTB goals for yourself?
Speaker 2 (39:02):
So that's kind of a good question, because I think
that what I experienced which Ithink is not not unusual is
after I became a gm.
It's like stay motivated isdifferent, right?
Um, because it was very cleareven when I was young and I'm
playing better and improving Iwasn't going to become like
world champion or somethingright like that was never really
in the cards, which you know isfine, right, but I would have
(39:26):
goals like making 2600, doingwhatever.
Uh, I would say at this point,I haven't played for several
years, both due to lots ofvarious reasons, right.
First it was just I was a bitburned out, so I took a break.
Then COVID happened when I wasgoing to come back, then some
personal stuff, whatever, and soI just didn't play for a long
(39:46):
time.
So now my goal is just to comeback and enjoy chess number one,
like just enjoy playing.
And also, I know I'm stillgoing to have like it's not even
about hitting a rating goal,but I'm going to have certain
things, like if I go and playand I'm blundering every game,
I'm going to be pretty annoyed,right, like there's certain
standards that you get used to,so to play to a certain standard
(40:08):
and try to improve right.
Like improving could be fixingmy opening repertoire, it could
be, you know, working onconverting one games, it could
be whatever, but just stilltrying to improve and do things.
I think at this point in mycareer, like shooting for a
rating goal would just not bevery smart because people like
every everything's different Nowpeople are underrated it just
(40:28):
doesn't.
I think that wouldn't be smart.
So I'm making my goals verypersonal and just to do with
enjoying and improving at thesame time, and if I can do those
things I'll be kind of happy.
I don't think I have aparticular goal as far as
winning a particular tournament,making it like sure, qualifying
for US Championship would benice, winning it would be nice.
But I'm realistic, right, likeI think that I did qualify for
(40:52):
US Championship by winning USOpen.
That would be an attainablething still, at least in theory.
But I have to be realistic aswell and I think the main thing
I would want to focus on,regardless of where I go, is
just I want to enjoy playing thetournaments I'm playing and you
know, and I want to still stillfeel like I have ways to
(41:15):
improve, like as I play, like Idon't want to play and not
improve either, if that makessense do you have a sense of
about how many tournaments you'dlike to go to in a year?
far fewer than when I was veryactive.
I can tell you that I think forme a lot of it is just I want
to go to tournaments where Ireally want to play.
Like I think when I was youngerit could be like two games a
day in like a sweaty hall andI'd be waiting for the parry
(41:37):
outside they'd repair and I'd bejust standing there.
I'm not going to nameorganizers by name, but like I
would kind of tolerate that.
And now I feel like it's likeall right, josh, for you this is
now practically vacationbecause, let's face it, I'm not
playing.
For even when I was younger Ihad a couple of years I made
some money because I did well,but that was never my living.
(41:58):
So now it's especially not myliving.
I don't have to do that right.
So a lot of it is choosing theevents I really want to play.
If I can get conditions, that'snice, but it's also just want
to be there.
It's kind of a nice atmosphere.
I just like it's an enjoyableplace to to play chess and also,
you know, an interestingtournament is nice, like it's a
good field, that kind of thing.
(42:19):
Um, but that's mostly my, myfocus.
So as far as how manytournaments you know.
I could see it being four, Icould see it being eight.
It really would depend on how.
I won't know until I startplaying again how I'm feeling
about it, but in general I wouldprioritize the quality of the
tournament and how I you knowhow the experience will be, more
(42:40):
than almost anything else itsounds like, since you said that
you are not particularly ratingfocused right now and getting
back into it, yeah, that yourmain motivation is is just
missing playing yeah, yeah, likeI mean I miss playing, like I
like to, I like to play.
I didn't take a break that longon purpose.
It wasn't.
It wasn't like this is what Iwanted to do.
(43:00):
It's just life happens, right,it's like you know and.
But I I do miss playing, I likeI like to play and, um, you
know it's.
It's definitely a stressfulthing at the same time, but it's
something that you know is partof who I am a bit right.
And getting back into it, Ihave to say even when I was
playing more actively, I wasn'tsuper rating focused.
(43:20):
Gm title was something I couldaim for.
Right, Very specific Rating waskind of like, yeah, 2600 would
be nice, but I wasn't.
Like you know, I don't findthose things motivating for
better or worse.
I just don't.
You know, that's kind of whereI'm at and enjoying playing.
I still want to get better.
You know playing strong playerscan be motivating, you know
being able to play with them anddo okay.
(43:40):
But yeah, I think it is harder,once you've made the title, to
whether you're motivated by thatstuff or not.
It's harder.
Speaker 1 (43:49):
Josh, I close all of my interviews with a segment of
a series of shorter questionsdesigned just to be for fun.
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Oh fun, that's going to be difficult Okay.
Yeah, mostly fun, mostly fun.
I'll try not to give likelong-winded answers to the quick
, rapid fire questions.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
No, no, it's fine.
The question is fast, youranswer doesn't have to be.
Speaker 2 (44:11):
It's like when people try to get me to play bullet
and I take 10 seconds on a move,they're like Josh, this is not
how it works.
Speaker 1 (44:16):
Right.
So first question in the seriesof questions knights or?
Speaker 2 (44:20):
bishops.
So of course I can't give asimple answer.
I would say that, consideringthat bishops are more often,
better.
I would say I tend to be aknight person, in that I would
value bishops, or the advantageof bishops, a bit less than most
other GMs in my experience.
I don't mind giving up the twobishops I'm a big Nimzo fan.
(44:44):
Giving up the bishops it's notlike I don't respect the bishops
, but I would say I like havingthe knights, I'm comfortable
with the knights, so I'll gowith knights Excellent.
It's not like I don't respectthe bishops, but I would say I
don't.
I like having the knights, I'mcomfortable with the knights, so
I'll go with knights Excellent.
What's your favorite timecontrol?
I don't know everyonespecifically, but definitely
classical.
I used to play fast when I wasyoung, but that gene went away
real fast and now it's like I'mlike a tortoise, so classical is
(45:14):
better.
Who?
Speaker 1 (45:15):
is your favorite player of all time, uh, so I
would go with paul karras.
Actually, oh, nice, nice.
I don't think I've had someonegive uh him as your answer yet,
so I like that yeah, he wasalways a favorite of mine.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
Obviously I, like you know, I was a big fan of tal,
like everyone, right, you know.
But he was the player who I Idon't want to say modeled my
style after, because I don'tthink it's a good idea to do
that and I don't think I woulddo that, but he was the like,
the guy whose games I was likeyeah, this is kind of how I want
to play, you know if you couldplay any great player of the
past who is no longer alive, whowould it be?
(45:42):
uh, I mean morphe would be thestock answer, right like come on
, who wouldn't want to playmorphe?
Speaker 1 (45:49):
that's's the most popular that has to be right.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
Like I would, I want to give something original.
Like I don't know who, I mean Icould give Karras, I guess, but
like I mean I don't know, maybe, maybe someone like Larson
would be fun.
Larson, awesome, there we go,edit that out.
That was not.
Uh, I, I do know who chessplayers are, I swear we'll cut
(46:12):
right to the part where you sayhis name.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
Great, um, if you could play any of the top
players in the world right now,who would it be?
Speaker 2 (46:21):
I.
I guess I have to be boring andsay carlson again.
I mean, like obviously I wouldlike to play him.
Um, I don't know like playinglive on would be cool too.
I like I just find his stylereally interesting.
I think he'd be fun to play him.
Um, I don't know like playinglive on would be cool too.
Speaker 1 (46:33):
I like I just find his style really interesting.
I think he'd be fun to play um.
So what do you like about uhlevon's?
I?
Speaker 2 (46:36):
don't know, he just has his own.
He kind of does things his ownway, like his own view about how
to approach openings, how toapproach tournaments, the way he
sees certain positions is justdifferent than everyone.
I just find it really reallyfascinating.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
I always have interesting um, what is your
favorite opening to play aswhite uh?
Speaker 2 (46:56):
so it's white or black.
Are we starting with?
Oh, we're starting with one.
Starting with white?
Um, let me see, I would saymaybe catalan.
I really like especially thelines where black gets kind of
greedy and then you're down.
I love being down upon, even I.
I keep my.
I used to play all gambits whenI was young, so I'm keeping my
roots and like, especially ifthey try to grab the c4 pawn and
I get this counter play and uh,yeah, I, I like that kind of
(47:19):
position these days, like thekind of more positional,
aggressive kind of pawn sackgambit roots.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
I love it.
Yeah, um, what's your favoriteopening as black?
Speaker 2 (47:30):
uh, I still have to say kind of Spanish, like in
general, I like it for bothsides, but like closed Roy Lopez
positions I always have enjoyed.
I mean, they're still a bitmysterious to me, but it's
something.
I've played a lot for, bothcolors and I find the positions
endlessly interesting, eventhough it's not particularly
fashionable at the moment.
Speaker 1 (47:48):
But I do like those lines.
What's your favorite way tostudy the game?
Speaker 2 (47:54):
It's one of those things where, because it's so
much easier to study on acomputer screen, it ends up
being what I do more often thanI would like.
But when I'm studying,especially on my own, like when
I'm studying with another person, having a board can be annoying
, but I like taking a board andwhatever book I'm working on.
More recently I was doing arerun of some 1953 Candidates
(48:15):
games, whether it's somethinglike that, whether it's going
through a book.
I was looking at Mickey Adams'book recently and I was enjoying
that.
So yeah, I would say, sittingat a board with a book and
slowly going through a game or aproblem is still my favorite
way to study.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
If you had to choose a career other than chess, what
would it be?
Speaker 2 (48:36):
I mean, I would go with one of my hobbies, I guess.
So at the moment I really liketo cook.
I don't think I could be anactual kitchen cook, that's the
problem, but I do like to cookand I really enjoy music, so
some kind of.
At the moment I'm learningguitar and stuff, but I'm not
particularly attached to that,it's more just, I like music in
(48:57):
general, so some sort ofmusician would be, I think,
really cool.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
I'm a huge music fan myself, so I'm resisting the
urge to go down a rabbit holeand talking about music.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
It's all good.
You can bore your listeners asmuch as you want.
Speaker 1 (49:14):
Final question.
All good, you can bore yourlisteners as much as you want.
Speaker 2 (49:16):
Uh, final question, if a chess genie existed and can
grant you any one chess wish,what would you wish for?
Uh, let's see any one wish.
I don't know like just nothanging my pieces like I'm like
everyone else really I'm aneveryman when it comes to that I
just I don't want to just hangsomething.
I would like to play a complexgame and have it end in a normal
way and not have it be just.
Well, Josh, you just blundereda rook in this variation.
(49:38):
What are you doing?
I would like to cut that out.
Speaker 1 (49:41):
I guess I don't know, I feel like, okay, this is
going to sound silly maybe, buthearing a GM say they don't want
to hang their pieces, I assumethat means like missing some
kind of like five move tactical.
You would assume that.
Speaker 2 (49:54):
But no, it's honestly like silly oversights in
general.
Now again, obviously, with eachlevel of silly oversights a
different thing.
But you know, and I noticed itbecause I'm not currently as
much in practice and I studywith someone who's in much
better practice than I am andand we're going over lines and
I'll do fine, but there'll be aperiod where we're calculating a
line and it could be a move,two, three, whatever, and I say
(50:17):
something and then he's quietand I'm like okay, I did
something and it was like Ieither misplaced a piece or did
something in the middle of aline.
And I think that in general,chess is a lot more interesting
when you're not making dumbmistakes.
So I think everyone makes dumbmistakes.
Just the question of what thatentails for Carlson is going to
(50:37):
be different than me, then it'sgoing to be different than a
club player, right?
Speaker 1 (50:42):
Right, well, josh, I had a fantastic conversation
with you.
I really enjoyed talking aboutall things chess.
You're doing great work withyour YouTube channel, with the
Chessable courses and, I'm sure,with your students too, and so,
yeah, I just want to say Ireally enjoyed our conversation
and had a fantastic time talkingwith you, so thank you for
being here.
Speaker 2 (50:59):
Yeah, thanks for inviting me and yeah, hope
people like it.
Speaker 1 (51:03):
Yeah, I'm sure they will, and thank you again.
Thanks for listening.
This has been a production ofmy business, adult Chess Academy
, and that has a website withthe same name.
If you want to look for it, youcan also find me being way too
active on Twitter by searchingmy username lona underscore
(51:24):
chess.
See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.