The Chess Experience
The Chess Experience
113 GM Josh Friedel - Common Middlegame Mistakes & Coaching Insights
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:
Patreon: Support this pod by signing up for my Patreon called, “Podcast Perks.” Get exclusive voting on guests, a shout-out of your name on the pod, a DM convo w/ me each month about chess or episodes, and more!
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)
Hey, welcome to the chess experience On this show. It's all about helping adult improvers. I want to make learning chess easier for you to navigate, and I also want you to have a more fun experience along the way. I'm your host, daniel Lona, a fellow chess amateur. Let's get to it.
Speaker 1:This show is sponsored by chesscom, the world's largest chess community. Chesscom recently launched a new way to learn from your games with a feature called insights. If you visit chesscom slash insights, you can get detailed stats and analysis in any of the time controls you've played and across any time period. What kind of things can you learn? Well, you can learn. What time of day do you play your best morning, afternoon or night? What part of the game are you strongest or weakest? Opening, middle game or end game? Are you making more or less mistakes than opponents at your level? You can find out all this great info and much more at chesscom slash insights.
Speaker 1:Welcome to this week's episode. Our guest today is American Grandmaster Josh Friedel. Josh learned to play chess when he was just three years old and has had an impressive chess journey ever since. He became an IM in 2005 and then a GM in 2009. That same year, he tied for sixth place at the US Chess Championship and later competed in the World Cup. He's also been creating courses for many years and he also has written regularly for Chess Life. Most recently, he's published two chessable courses. One is on opening mistakes and the other is on middle game mistakes. We talked about the latter in this episode at length and Josh gives some great advice on how to avoid common middle game mistakes for both beginners and intermediates.
Speaker 1:On that subject, I'll be doing a chessable course giveaway of one of Josh's courses this week on Twitter. It will be on the one I just referenced the full video version of his course on avoiding middle game mistakes and I've personally gone through some of it and it's fantastic. Josh is great at explaining chess concepts in a clear and direct way and, even though it is aimed at beginners, it is incredibly helpful for intermediates. I like to think I'm an intermediate, I went through it and I was learning a ton. So to win this course, follow me on Twitter at Lona, underscore chess. I also have a link in the show notes to my Twitter profile in case you didn't remember exactly how to spell my Twitter handle, so you could just go and click on that link in the show notes and follow me there. Tomorrow I'll post details on the video course giveaway for his course on avoiding middle game mistakes.
Speaker 1:Okay, wrapping up this episode's preview, I also talked with Josh about his coaching career. He answers a couple of improvement questions from my followers and we also discussed why he wants to return to OTB competition. Here's my interview with Josh. I hope you enjoy it. Hi, josh, I'm excited to chat with you today. I know you told me in advance you're a little under the weather, but other than that, how are you doing? I'm doing pretty well.
Speaker 2:Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, my pleasure, very excited to chat with you, been impressed with your chessable courses and the work you've done there because, well, I mean, just on the face of it it's already it's really cool stuff. But in the run-up to our interview today I had a chance to go through some of them and just dive into more of your teaching style and what you're offering. I just think it's fantastic stuff. So I'm excited to talk about that and everything else. Chess with you today, yeah, should be good. So one of the things that stands out to me about what you do and what you've done is with respect to your coaching. This may be my own silly thought in my head, I don't know, but typically when I think of a GM coaching students, I imagine them coaching people 2000 on up, just because they, as a coach, are so advanced. But, that said, I love when a GM takes their expertise to help club players as well as you do. So, yeah, I just want to know about how this all unfolded for you. Can you talk about your coaching career?
Speaker 2:Sure, and, yeah, I appreciate you going through my courses and stuff. It's always actually very flattering to me because I spend time on them and I try to make them good, but I'm always like, are they really good? So I'm glad that you've liked them. So I started coaching when I was in my teens I would say like fairly young. I was probably like 2300s, but I had very little teaching experience.
Speaker 2:Needless to say, I was not a great coach at first, not as in, I was probably like 2300s, but I had very little teaching experience. Needless to say, I was not a great coach at first, not as in. I was bad, but, as in, I didn't really know how to coach. I was a very good player and I could convey information. I wasn't bad for my students, but I didn't really know how to properly coach people yet.
Speaker 2:You know, because I'm just starting right, sure, but then it's something that because, unless you're like very, very top player which I never quite was like you're not going to make a living by playing. So coaching is something if you want to do chess, that's something you have to do. But it is still something that I strove to become better at and at some point it became just a very regular part of what I do and I really enjoy it, like at this point. It's like at the beginning there were certain parts where I was like, well, I'd rather be playing all the time and studying, which you know is nice but now it's like I like obviously playing and studying and that kind of thing. But I've gotten to really enjoy the coaching quite a bit and yeah, I mean it's like a good.
Speaker 2:It's a good thing that I'm glad I started doing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, that's fantastic. So I'm curious about, like, who you have coached over the years, because you know you've said you've coached since you were in your teens. Yeah, so you've been doing it some years now. Have you always coached a typical rating range?
Speaker 2: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 not like, especially when I started I wasn't. It wasn't like I was getting tons of requests, right, so I wasn't particularly good at promoting myself. Still, that's not a strength of mine. So you know, I would kind of say yes when people wanted me to coach, coach them regardless of their level. But I would say in general that I don't really care about the level so much Like I enjoy coaching.
Speaker 2:You know, usually I don't coach quite beginners like people who are just learning the moves is very rare. But like, say, from novice players to even like other grandmasters sometimes, like I like coaching all of them. They're all kind of different and they all offer their own challenges. But it's definitely something I was always willing to coach kind of any level, partially just for practical reasons, right, like I didn't get that many requests. So you know I would coach whoever really wanted, you know was interested in me and wanted to work with me. But it's also something that I really don't dislike coaching any level Like to me they all have their own challenges and interesting parts to it.
Speaker 1:Is it easy at this point for you to shift gears to like the level that you're coaching? You know, like, say, in a given day, for example, if you were coaching someone who was just 1600 and then your next student is 2300 or something, or 2200, whatever. It's a different style of coaching, right? I?
Speaker 2:think, yeah, it could be a bit jarring if I go from one to the other, but you, you get 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 as far as the level of difficulty of what I present. Like I'm always worried about giving whether it's like when I'm going over and asking questions or whether I'm giving them positions I'm always worried it will be too easy. So, if anything, shoot above. But it definitely takes some adapting, not just to the levels, but everyone's personality is different. Learned the game almost kind of recently and it was really getting into it. And then I coach you know juniors who are, you know, really, really strong already. And then I coach you know people middle-aged, who are 2100, right, like. So they're all different personalities as well as levels, and if you try to coach them all in the exact same way, it's not going to work out too well, you know Sure.
Speaker 1:So you said, I think, when we talked beforehand, that, like right now, you typically teach in the range of 1600 to 2100. Like that's like the bell of the bell curve where your students land right now. Is that right?
Speaker 2:Yeah, and it's not by choice, it's just where they happen to be at the moment. I've had periods where I've coached largely 22 to 2400. I've had periods with more under 1200, even like it really depends, but right now I'd say the past bunch of years, especially like that, tends to be the the range of people who seek me out. I would say 16 to 21 2200.
Speaker 1:That range. I know you mentioned that self promotion. You didn't feel like was a strength, but maybe slightly awkwardly, asked you to do that right now. Feel like was a strength but I'll maybe slightly awkwardly ask you to do that right now. Um, which is um, get ready everyone. Uh, yeah, like what? What do you feel is like one of your strengths as a coach? Because I I feel like coaches who've been doing it for a while typically pride themselves like at least one thing that they feel you know they stand out on as a coach um, let me see, I mean I would say that, um, just just as coaches go like, having a coach who is a grandmaster can be useful even at lower levels.
Speaker 2:Just having a coach who's like a grandmaster as opposed to like even 2200, there are fewer things that you have to relearn, um, because you know like, let's say, like a 2200 doesn't understand the game quite as well, generally speaking, right. So there are going to be certain things that they will teach that maybe aren't quite accurate, even if they're great coaches, right, there are plenty of 2200s or even below who are excellent coaches, right, but they don't quite understand the game as as well. So there are always certain things that you have to relearn, which isn't the biggest deal, but when you are having a gm coach, that doesn't happen as often. You know what I mean, yeah, so there is an advantage of that.
Speaker 2:As far as me, personally, I'm honestly like and again you can see why I'm so successful at self-promotion I can't think of anything in particular that I'd be like. Yeah, like, I love showing end games. I know, I like working on end games if a student wants to come to me, yeah, I want to learn about end games. I tend to, you know, be able to show a lot of things and be able to do that um, so I'd say like, like that would be like a specialty, I, I guess.
Speaker 2:Um, but I think a lot of my strength is just the willingness to change, based on the student, quite a bit like I have certain routines I have with different students. Like my lessons do not look the same. Um, there are a lot of coaches who I've known who kind of their their lessons like they could be even quite good coaches, but their lessons tend to look the same, regardless of who the student is. Is then, all right, you want to go over your games? All right, let's go, let's do this. And it's like they have kind of a 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 want to do, and then if my student has something they really want to do, I can do it. I think the flexibility of that maybe is a strength I have, so this may be the best I could come up with.
Speaker 1:No, that's a great answer. Yeah, that's definitely a strength. That's not. I mean, that's very valuable but not very common always. So that's that's excellent. So I'd like to dive into talking about your chess level courses now. Yeah, and based on what we talked about that, you know you mostly teach intermediates on up. You know this course that you created is still aimed at beginners and I'm curious if that was the most you had done, like to really just focus on how to teach beginners outside of just like an occasional student or two yeah.
Speaker 2:So I would say like it's not like. So I've interacted with plenty of beginners, right, I've taught in schools before. Uh, I've done like enough that I know like I'm at least familiar enough with teaching beginners. Um, it's something which I've done a fair amount of and I'm not at all uncomfortable with it. So, yeah, I mean, I don't think it's so much that I think that the video courses I've done video courses probably since mid 2000s, so I've been doing a lot of them and I haven't done as many videos as some people who do like YouTube videos all the time. But I've done a fair share, but I've done very few just aimed at beginners.
Speaker 2:So the main thing that I was worried about and nervous about is to make sure it's aimed well. But, as I told you, I don't like making things too easy. So I did put in some positions which are still from beginner games but which are a little bit trickier. So I thought that a beginner because it's a choice between two moves a beginner can likely solve it, but that even a more advanced player like yourself would still be challenged a little bit, because to actually see the whole solution is not easy, even if deciding between the two moves is relatively simple, and my aim was so that even, like you know again, players who are on the intermediate range or lower intermediate range could still pick up a few things, even though it's aimed at beginners. My main hope is that beginners still get plenty out of it, but that I actually don't mind hearing that. You know, slightly stronger players can also be challenged by a few positions.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I think it's worth mentioning that because I think a majority of my audience is in that range that I'm in as an intermediate club player. And, to add to what you're saying, when I was going through your course, even if I picked the correct answer, where you often pose like two options even if I picked the correct answer, your explanation still was very helpful because you would highlight lines that maybe I had missed and I was like, oh, maybe I didn't fully understand why this was the right choice, and then just even just the little tips that you give along the way about how to understand the position better.
Speaker 1:you know are all insights that I mostly didn't have anyhow.
Speaker 2:Oh, glad to hear that.
Speaker 1:So you know, just yeah, seeing it through your eyes, in other words, is obviously a lot more illuminating than seeing it through my own and understanding chess. It's a very helpful course, I think, even for intermediates, in fact. Let's talk about one of them in particular. But just as a preface, I want to mention that you have two courses published so far. Both have the main title of beginner mistakes and how to avoid them. One focuses on openings right now. The other focuses on middle game mistakes. I know more are coming, but that's current as of the time of this recording, and I want to talk about the middle game course a bit. I'm curious how you pick the different categories of mistakes in the middle game to cover. You have tactical, attacking, consolidation, positional and awareness as the categories of mistakes that you could make. So how did you decide on those versus any others?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean honestly. So my process is I get the mistakes first. I want a collection of mistakes first 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 dropping a piece or something like that, and it's hard. But I don't want to have every category be don't hang your pieces right, like that would be. People would be like why am I buying this course, right? So I wanted to categorize it somewhat and those are the categories I came up with. That, at least to me, made sense.
Speaker 2:So, even though you're still a lot of the mistakes are still kind of all right, don't give anything away or don't do anything. There are definitely mistakes which I would say are yeah, don't play a weakening pawn, move right or don't you know. And I did try to include mistakes like that, which generally are not what I would call even beginner mistakes, like there are mistakes that more advanced players can make. But I think having a beginner get a jumpstart on why these moves are bad and what to try to fix it is still a good thing. So I kind of organized it by you know the kind of mistakes I saw often and then I tried to make 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 of beginner games way too many and I went through and I picked moments which I thought were quite good.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's awesome, and I mean some of those things I've just not heard of, as I guess you could say categories of mistakes like consolidation or attacking, just as a category. Like I could, I could, you know, envision scenarios where my attack was not successful, but I never thought of it as, oh, as a player, I struggle in making too many attacking mistakes. You know, like it just wasn't. I never saw it that way, so I appreciate that it's actually funny.
Speaker 2:You say that because I I have a student of mine and he's, like you know, kind of an older guy. He really understands the game well. He's like 2100 something, right, uh, but he understands the game on a very high level. And I was looking through his games and at some point I said to him that like yeah, so you should really do more mating patterns, just like solve more checkmates. And what he told me later was that was like the most useful thing I anyone had told him. Like he improved more from just doing mating patterns than anything else. And it's not like I told him something magical, right. He basically said it was kind of a joke, like yeah, nothing else you told me was useful, but that was useful and it was really. It's amazing how often something like that is important, like people just don't know their mating patterns.
Speaker 2:In my lesson this morning there were at least a couple of times where I was waiting and I'm teaching like really talented, nice kid, right, but he was struggling to see like it was an end game and there was a mating pattern which is common. He was struggling to see it and it's very clear that, like, if you don't practice these patterns, it's very difficult. So I did see that a lot in the beginner games and learning how to checkmate your opponent is just an important thing to do. That was why that category kind of came up for me, and it's funny because I see it at different levels, not just beginner. Yeah, I absolutely would not have expected that to be an area of weakness, for positional understanding, for 2100 is insane, like crazy good, but there's a reason why he's 2100. One of them is like, yeah, you got to learn how to checkmate your opponent, buddy, and it sounds kind of dumb, but it's actually very important, right, it's an important skill, yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, for sure. So I want to talk a little bit about that chapter on consolidation, because I think you talk about something there that I think deserves to be discussed more often, which is the challenge of converting a one position. Yeah, you dive into that more in the course, but I'm curious to hear just some quick thoughts from you on why is this so challenging for people converting a one position?
Speaker 2:I think the challenging part of it is that people either over adapt or they under adapt because they're like, oh, I have a winning position and then either they relax too much and allow counterplay or they are like, oh my gosh, I have to just try to trade everything and they make just bad moves. So, learning the balance of, yeah, you still want to improve your pieces and play just natural good moves, but there 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 game simpler. But a lot of the times I get positions where you know a student of mine this happens with me quite frequently where a student of mine wants to trade Queens and I'm like, why are you trading Queens? You're mating them. Like, why are we trading Queens? I know you're up material, but why are we trading queens? I know you're up material, but just checkmate. What's the problem? So it's kind of.
Speaker 2:I think people either over adapt, like they just try to trade everything and that's all they do and that's the only function of their moves. It sounds kind of silly, but they have it ingrained at a young age. You have to trade pieces when you're up material, and that can get in the way in a lot of positions. And then you have people who just relax too much, right, they don't worry about it, they, they end up just letting the game spiral out of control, and it's a really hard thing for any level really. It's one of the hardest things to do, uh, is to convert to one position, and I think it's because you have to adapt just the right amount, um, and that's the hard part of it right?
Speaker 1:that's a great insight on the the, the other end of the spectrum we just talked about. Do you think that's a function of just being overconfident in the game, feeling like, well, there's not much, I need to do anymore, just sometimes, uh, it could definitely be, can be that.
Speaker 2:Um, other times it's more just like they worked hard earlier because they had to figure out stuff and then, once they get the winning position, it's a natural thing to kind of like oh, now the hard part's over, whereas oftentimes the hard part kind of begins right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, exactly so it's. It's kind of a natural reaction.
Speaker 2:I find that people have, um, and everyone has their own sense of this. I find that every student's different and as far as like where they relax, like some people relax when it's like, oh, now I just have an extra piece in an end game I'll win without thinking. Or oh, now I just have like a really big positional edge and nothing could happen to me. Like there's always different parts where people relax and it's it's individual to each player is what I find that's a great explanation.
Speaker 1:You mentioned how one of the mistakes in consolidation can be just thinking that all you need to do is trade, trade pieces. Yeah, I see that all the time. Uh, yeah, until just your, your material advantage remains and nothing else. Why is that not enough?
Speaker 2:uh, it's just, there are so many times when people forget they're playing, like it's still playing a chess position. Right, if you have an amazing piece, like if you have some like monster knight cemented on D6 and you're like, well, I'm up material, I should trade it for an awful CA bishop, that's never moving, it's still a bad move, right. Like you're still worsening your position. It's, and it's just something that people struggle because it's so ingrained, like from early coaching or early advice, you want to trade pieces when you're up. It actually gets in your way.
Speaker 2:Like you end up playing moves that are unfavorable. You end up spending two or three tempe to seek out a trade while your opponent's improving their pieces. Who do you think is going to benefit from that? You know Right, and I think people forget they still have to play chess. Like they still have to improve their pieces, they still have to do good things. Like. Trading is kind of one of those things where it should be nice but it's not like. All right, I'm just going to seek out all the trades in the position. You know like. Let me put it this way let's say you have the starting position and you have an extra rook against gm, just for example, right, do you think you're gonna have a lot of success if you're like, well, I'll just trade off all the pieces and then I'll win?
Speaker 1:not.
Speaker 2:Not against the GM, no like this is not a good strategy, right, it's a really bad strategy. Like you should play kind of normal right. Now it's an exaggerated scenario, but a lot of positions are like that. You have to kind of play normal good moves most of the time, but you have a sort of leaning towards simple positions. You don't want to make it complicated. Simple positions, you don't want to make it complicated. You have a leaning towards trading off material to make the game simpler when you're up material. Right, you want to think more lean than all. Right, this is my primary goal in the position, because most positions you got to improve your pieces. That's just the way chess works.
Speaker 1:Right, yeah, that was a great explanation. So yeah, like I mentioned, in addition to the middle game course that you have right now in Chessable, you also have one related to opening mistakes. What are the future courses that you plan on doing with Chessable?
Speaker 2:So at the moment I'm working on. Obviously, getting a cold when this happens is perfect, but I'm working on recording the end game version now, so beginner mistakes and avoiding them in the end game. So basically the end game version of the other two. So it was definitely a much harder course to record, just because not a lot of beginner games 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 nature of the course a little bit. But I still think I'm hoping at least it will be very beneficial for, you know, for both beginners and lower intermediate players, and a lot of it also is just filling in some end game knowledge too, um, and stuff like that. But it's um, that's currently what I'm working on, Um, and then at some point I'll, I'll, I'll work.
Speaker 2:I'm sure they want, you know they they tend to like opening courses. It's just what. What they tend to like opening courses, it's just what people do. So I might try one, but I'd want to do something that's a little different, not kind of the same. So I'm still kind of thinking about that, but at the moment I'm working on the endgame course Before.
Speaker 1:I talk about your book. You said something earlier that I just wanted to follow up on a little bit. You said you had been doing courses since, I think you said, like late 2000s Is that right? I think mid. Where have you done these courses?
Speaker 2:like um. So I think the first one I did was chess lecturecom, when they first started coming out with courses um, I think I was one of the early ones to do them. Um, this was when there weren't like infinite chess videos out there, right, um, like I actually had an experience that was both really nice and also really kind of terrifying, where there was this woman who is, I think, she, I think she's a college student or just graduated college and she told me yeah, I grew up watching Do not tell me this, I'm not that old, but anyways, a painful compliment. Yeah, kind of, it was nice, but it was also like, oh my goodness, but yeah, it was. So I would say I did it for chess lecture. And then I'm trying to remember where 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 doing them basically from like 2006 or whatever to now, essentially.
Speaker 1: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:So it's one of those things where it's something I've been working on a while, just free time, and I would say the last six months have been, for various personal reasons and various, just traveling to work and doing other things. I've just have not had that time and working on Chessable courses, especially this last one, has been quite time consuming, which is fine. So the book kind of takes a backseat, essentially focusing on things that earn you a living right now. I have to prioritize. You know, focusing on things that you know earn you a living right now I have to prioritize. So, um, you know it's kind of taking a back seat, but in general it's kind of it's aimed to be like a general improving.
Speaker 2:So the idea is that I take each chess skill and I try to break them apart. So essentially I take calculation, for example, and I break it apart into different groups, so like, okay, this is how you look for your tempo moves. And then you have positions where you practice just looking for tempo moves, that's it. Then I say, all right, this is how you look ahead with your tempo moves. Then you practice just looking ahead seeing all the tempo moves. Then here's how you visualize a position, right. So this is the position, several moves from now, and I call it kind of dynamic visualization, where it's basically not just counting material in a future position, but being able to say what are the tempo moves here, what are the checks, captures, threats, what's going on, who's better there, and being able to see the position in a clear way. And I basically because, when you think about calculation, it's a skill that is made up of a bunch of things jumbled right, so I try to take them apart and work on them. One at a time is the idea. That's amazing.
Speaker 1:I love that. That sounds fantastic. I mean, I'm really excited about the book and the only sad news now is knowing that-.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, now it may never you know, 20 years I'll be like walking around with a cane and finally promote my book. No, I'm hoping it's something I get back to. It's just when I have a lot of stuff going on. It definitely takes a backseat, sure, but I would say like, at the moment I have a lot of writing, like I've written a lot. I like to write in general actually, even though it's not something I do for a living, exactly Like I like to write. So I did a fair amount of the writing.
Speaker 2:The hard part is sourcing a lot of the positions because the nature of my book, a lot of the positions I have to invent, um, so that takes some time. And then others I have to source 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 to be the the tricky part of doing everything, um. But yeah, I'm hoping it has like a little something that you know a lot of players can use. It's mainly aimed at intermediate players, but I do have a beginner section actually where I do a bunch of activities that I would do with. You know, like I did this actually when I was like a long time ago, when I was showing my niece how to play, like I would put a knight in the middle of the board and say, show me how it moves, and that kind of thing, and I give some kind of exercises that I think for beginners would be very useful and things like that this would be your first book.
Speaker 1:Yeah yeah, just curious because what the experience difference is for you between writing a book and creating a video course? Is one easier or harder?
Speaker 2: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 book right, so I like to write in general. So I've done articles on chess. I like to just do regular writing as well, but it's more of a like. It's not something I do for a living, it's more of just something I like to do. So I enjoy the writing, but it's definitely not something I'm. You know, I've done as many times, obviously, like the chess videos I've done so many that it's a little bit easier just because I know kind of how to put one together and what it should look like and obviously I'm not saying they're all perfect, but at least I know kind of how to do it Whereas a book is like a huge undertaking, at least for me. I'm amazed by people who publish all these books. I'm like how do you actually do this and have a life outside of making your book?
Speaker 1:Maybe they wonder how you publish so many videos.
Speaker 2:Maybe. I mean, I think also part of it is like it went from a course, from a video or, sorry, a book that was going to be about kind of like tips and tricks to like let 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 with it but, uh, I'm hoping at least it'll, like it'll come out at some point and it'll have things that you know, if you don't use the whole, hoping at least it'll come out at some point and it'll have things that you know, if you don't use the whole book, at least some things that people will find useful. Sure.
Speaker 1:Yeah well, I'm cheering it on because it sounds like a fantastic book. I love the topics, I love your approach.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, so I'm hoping it'll work out.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so you have a YouTube channel that covers a lot of improvement topics, ranging from how to create counterplay to how to create a mating attack. Yeah, lots of great topics there. How do you choose what to create for a video Like? What's the inspiration for them?
Speaker 2:Usually it's kind of I see a position or I see a game that's being played and I'm like, oh, that'll be a cool idea, you know. Or I see a type of mistake from a lot of students that they make repeatedly, or a type of mistake from a lot of students that they make repeatedly, or a type of thing that I think would be like generally useful, and I usually aim it again at kind of intermediate. Um, although it's actually really funny. One of the other times I had a former student of mine who's now a gm, was like yeah, so I was looking at your video and I saw this king of pottingham. I'm like you were watching my video. I was like what's happening?
Speaker 2:But yeah, in general it's usually like I get inspired by like following live events or by, you know, just seeing a type of mistake made frequently, and then I kind of have different examples to kind of highlight it, and a lot of the idea is that it's often from games of like GM games or top player whether it's top player or you know other GM games or you know, at the slightly lower level, but it's aimed to show how this type of mistake can actually be like dissected at like, you know, obviously at lower level it's made with greater frequency, but it's kind of this is what this mistake looks like, kind of thing.
Speaker 1:Well, I mean I appreciate the quality of topics that you brought up and taught in your YouTube channel. I mean it feels like you figure out topics that just haven't been covered a thousand times by other.
Speaker 2:That's also something I try to do, like I try to think of things that are, you know, not out there. Like I don't watch a lot of chess YouTube, really, but I try to cover things that aren't you know 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's kind of I want it to be its own thing, you know right, right, yeah, and I appreciate it's not like just oh, have you tried this crazy opening track?
Speaker 2:yeah, yeah, that's why I can't watch chess youtube. There are some things where I'm seeing it, I'm like, oh god, there are thousands of people watching this. This is all these, all these people, it's. It's kind of like watching, like you know, a psychologist watching people go insane.
Speaker 1: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 talking about your channel, that you had a student who is now a gm. That's really impressive. What rating or level were they at when they started with you?
Speaker 2:um, so, yeah, I've had, I've had a few students who either became jabs I've worked with sub gms, I've worked with jabs who are stronger than me, right, like, and obviously it's not like I'm teaching them everything, but I could still help them with certain things, right, right, and then uh, but I would say I taught him, I've known him since he was, uh, quite young, um, so I, I, you know, I interacted with him a little and then I started teaching him when he was in his like early teens, and then I taught 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'm assuming. So I don't know.
Speaker 1:Too hard on yourself.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's all good.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I wanted to ask you, um, since you're a coach and you do all this, this great educational stuff in chess with videos and courses, I thought I'd ask you a couple of questions, improvement-based questions from some Twitter followers. Okay, two questions from two Twitter followers, all right, the first one doesn't really have a proper name, but this person asks a really good question nonetheless. In the middle game, let's pretend I don't have any obvious improving moves, how do you plan a strategy? Or rather, what are some common strategies? And then they go on to say assume I'm developed castled rooks on semi-open files, no pieces on the board are hanging or in danger. So I guess you're saying in that situation, how do you plan strategy?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean it's tough to talk about it vaguely because every position is a bit different, but I would say that it's very rare you have a situation where you have no pieces to improve. I would say that even if you've developed pieces out and you're castled and everything, the nature of the position will often change so that you know to give you a very small example for those who know, like the Spanish, as black or Roy Lopez, you often have a situation where, as black, you play with like a six and B five after your Knights on C six, and once you do this, your Knight on C six is often misplaced and has and should move. So even though your Knights perfectly developed your, it blocks your C pawn. It's not great. So, like, the main moves in a lot of Spanish positions involve playing like net a five and then moving the C pawn. Or playing night B eight to D seven even, which looks insane to people who don't know about chess. Um to beginners that that looks crazy. But the idea is you could still improve. So often there are still pieces that could be improved. Um, if that's not the case, as much often you can look to where do you have the advantage in a position Like do you have a side of the board that you're controlling a bit better or a side of the board you can make progress?
Speaker 2:A typical example would be take a typical Carlsbad pawn structure right, and this would be like white would have and again, I'm trying to do it slow. People can set it up if they want, but basically pawns like F2, e3, d4 against D5, c6, b7. Very typical pawn structure and the pawn structure determines what your plan should be. So, for example, in that position, white has plans of playing B4, b5 to try to break apart the black pawn chain. White could play F3, e4 to try to play at the center. White can try to put a knight on e5 and erect a piece there. There are different types of plans and it's all kind of suit based on where your pieces are, where your opponent's pieces are, what's going on? Um, and it's a very difficult thing to do, but I would say usually there's a side of the board where you're more able to play on.
Speaker 2:You want to ask where can you make the most progress? Can you gain space with your pawns? Can you do something else? Sometimes it's a matter of just improving in the center or trying to expand in the center. Other times, if you can't do that much, you should be focused on your opponent's ideas. That's often where people get stuck. They don't look at their opponent's ideas. Playing for b4, b5 you might think of playing a5 to disrupt their idea. So people you know thinking about your opponent's idea. If you're ever stuck and can't come up with a great idea for yourself, ask what your opponent will do, and usually there will be something. It's very rare you have a position where neither side can do anything too great like it's quite rare. So usually one of those things will at least lead you in a direction that you know could help.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's a fantastic answer. I love that.
Speaker 2:I was worried I would go on too long. But when it's general it's actually tougher sometimes because it's like there's every specific situation I want to mention and I have to be like. No, josh, like just give a simple example.
Speaker 1:No, that was excellent and going longer was helpful because you had a great fallback there, like in case you know you can't find anything to improve your own position or pieces. That was a great second thing to look for. That's awesome. The other question that I have from a Twitter follower and this one is their Twitter handle is Shawshank Chess. They have a question from a coaching perspective. I assume they are a coach themselves, but I think it can help the way they asked it. I think it can be relevant even for people who would be the student to hear your answer. So they asked as a chess coach, is it fair to focus on helping your intermediate students more in middle games and end games than openings?
Speaker 2:It depends on the student. You can't ever go by general rules, I find, because everyone's different. In general, I think that people study end games too little and openings too much that I can tell you. I would say openings, it's easier to learn them on your own. There are more resources, so by that measure maybe, but there are plenty of students I've had and do have where they get bad positions out of the opening all the time. It's a phase you have to fix. You don't want people doing that.
Speaker 2:If people get good positions out of the opening or are doing fine at the opening every game and they don't have problems or so many, then yeah, focusing on middle games and end games is useful, but you have to go by the student. I just think general rules do not work. Every student's a bit different. I will say that a lot of people in certain rating ranges have to work on the same things a lot of the time. But you have to go by the individual student because I find that once, at least for me, like once I look at several of their games, I can get a sense okay, this is where they're going wrong, or at least more so right, and also when you just hear them explain their moves. You know like sometimes I actually don't know from, I think from the games they have a particular problem. But then when I hear their thought process I'm like, oh no, they have a different thing they're doing. So you really have to go by the student. I don't think there's a great general rule for that sadly.
Speaker 1:Yeah, oh, that's an excellent answer. The last topic I want to talk about with you, josh, before finishing with my final quick question segment before finishing with my final quick question segment is just with respect to your own competitive OTB goals. I'm always excited when title players are still working towards more things, because I feel like they've already accomplished so much already. So what are you working on with OTB goals for yourself?
Speaker 2:So that's kind of a good question, because I think that what I experienced which I think is not not unusual is after I became a gm. It's like stay motivated is different, right? Um, because it was very clear even when I was young and I'm playing better and improving I wasn't going to become like world champion or something right like that was never really in the cards, which you know is fine, right, but I would have goals like making 2600, doing whatever. Uh, I would say at this point, I haven't played for several years, both due to lots of various reasons, right. First it was just I was a bit burned out, so I took a break. Then COVID happened when I was going to come back, then some personal stuff, whatever, and so I just didn't play for a long time.
Speaker 2:So now my goal is just to come back and enjoy chess number one, like just enjoy playing. And also, I know I'm still going 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 play and 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 and try to improve right. Like improving could be fixing my opening repertoire, it could be, you know, working on converting one games, it could be whatever, but just still trying to improve and do things. I think at this point in my career, like shooting for a rating goal would just not be very smart because people like every everything's different Now people are underrated it just doesn't. I think that wouldn't be smart. So I'm making my goals very personal and just to do with enjoying and improving at the same time, and if I can do those things I'll be kind of happy.
Speaker 2:I don't think I have a particular goal as far as winning a particular tournament, making it like sure, qualifying for US Championship would be nice, winning it would be nice. But I'm realistic, right, like I think that I did qualify for US Championship by winning US Open. That would be an attainable thing still, at least in theory. But I have to be realistic as well and I think the main thing I would want to focus on, regardless of where I go, is just I want to enjoy playing the tournaments I'm playing and you know, and I want to still still feel like I have ways to improve, like as I play, like I don't want to play and not improve either, if that makes sense do you have a sense of about how many tournaments you'd like to go to in a year?
Speaker 2:far fewer than when I was very active. I can tell you that I think for me a lot of it is just I want to go to tournaments where I really want to play. Like I think when I was younger it could be like two games a day in like a sweaty hall and I'd be waiting for the parry outside they'd repair and I'd be just standing there. I'm not going to name organizers by name, but like I would kind of tolerate that. And now I feel like it's like all right, josh, for you this is now practically vacation because, let's face it, I'm not playing. For even when I was younger I had a couple of years I made some money because I did well, but that was never my living. So now it's especially not my living. I don't have to do that right.
Speaker 2:So a lot of it is choosing the events I really want to play. If I can get conditions, that's nice, but it's also just want to be there. It's kind of a nice atmosphere. I just like it's an enjoyable place to to play chess and also, you know, an interesting tournament is nice, like it's a good field, that kind of thing. Um, but that's mostly my, my focus. So as far as how many tournaments you know. I could see it being four, I could see it being eight. It really would depend on how. I won't know until I start playing again how I'm feeling about it, but in general I would prioritize the quality of the tournament and how I you know how the experience will be, more than almost anything else it sounds like, since you said that you are not particularly rating focused right now and getting back into it, yeah, that your main motivation is is just missing playing yeah, yeah, like I mean I miss playing, like I like to, I like to play.
Speaker 2:I didn't take a break that long on purpose. It wasn't. It wasn't like this is what I wanted to do. It's just life happens, right, it's like you know and. But I I do miss playing, I like I like to play and, um, you know it's. It's definitely a stressful thing at the same time, but it's something that you know is part of who I am a bit right. And getting back into it, I have to say even when I was playing more actively, I wasn't super rating focused. Gm title was something I could aim for. Right, Very specific Rating was kind of like, yeah, 2600 would be nice, but I wasn't. Like you know, I don't find those things motivating for better or worse. I just don't. You know, that's kind of where I'm at and enjoying playing. I still want to get better. You know playing strong players can be motivating, you know being able to play with them and do okay. But yeah, I think it is harder, once you've made the title, to whether you're motivated by that stuff or not. It's harder.
Speaker 1:Josh, I close all of my interviews with a segment of a series of shorter questions designed just to be for fun.
Speaker 2:Oh fun, that's going to be difficult Okay. Yeah, mostly fun, mostly fun. I'll try not to give like long-winded answers to the quick, rapid fire questions.
Speaker 1:No, no, it's fine. The question is fast, your answer doesn't have to be.
Speaker 2: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:Right. So first question in the series of questions knights or?
Speaker 2:bishops. So of course I can't give a simple answer. I would say that, considering that bishops are more often, better. I would say I tend to be a knight person, in that I would value bishops, or the advantage of bishops, a bit less than most other GMs in my experience. I don't mind giving up the two bishops I'm a big Nimzo fan. Giving up the bishops it's not like I don't respect the bishops, but I would say I like having the knights, I'm comfortable with the knights, so I'll go with knights Excellent. It's not like I don't respect the bishops, but I would say I don't. I like having the knights, I'm comfortable with the knights, so I'll go with knights Excellent. What's your favorite time control? I don't know everyone specifically, but definitely classical. I used to play fast when I was young, but that gene went away real fast and now it's like I'm like a tortoise, so classical is better. Who?
Speaker 1: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 someone give uh him as your answer yet, so I like that yeah, he was always a favorite of mine.
Speaker 2:Obviously I, like you know, I was a big fan of tal, like everyone, right, you know. But he was the player who I I don't want to say modeled my style after, because I don't think it's a good idea to do that and I don't think I would do that, but he was the like, the guy whose games I was like yeah, this is kind of how I want to play, you know if you could play any great player of the past who is no longer alive, who would it be?
Speaker 2:uh, I mean morphe would be the stock answer, right like come on, who wouldn't want to play morphe?
Speaker 1:that's's the most popular that has to be right.
Speaker 2:Like I would, I want to give something original. Like I don't know who, I mean I could 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 chess players are, I swear we'll cut right to the part where you say his name.
Speaker 1:Great, um, if you could play any of the top players in the world right now, who would it be?
Speaker 2:I. I guess I have to be boring and say carlson again. I mean, like obviously I would like to play him. Um, I don't know like playing live on would be cool too. I like I just find his style really interesting. I think he'd be fun to play him. Um, I don't know like playing live on would be cool too.
Speaker 1:I like I just find his style really interesting. I think he'd be fun to play um. So what do you like about uh levon's? I?
Speaker 2:don't know, he just has his own. He kind of does things his own way, like his own view about how to approach openings, how to approach tournaments, the way he sees certain positions is just different than everyone. I just find it really really fascinating.
Speaker 1:I always have interesting um, what is your favorite opening to play as white uh?
Speaker 2: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 say maybe catalan. I really like especially the lines 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 when I was young, so I'm keeping my roots and like, especially if they try to grab the c4 pawn and I get this counter play and uh, yeah, I, I like that kind of position these days, like the kind of more positional, aggressive kind of pawn sack gambit roots.
Speaker 1:I love it. Yeah, um, what's your favorite opening as black?
Speaker 2:uh, I still have to say kind of Spanish, like in general, I like it for both sides, but like closed Roy Lopez positions I always have enjoyed. I mean, they're still a bit mysterious to me, but it's something. I've played a lot for, both colors and I find the positions endlessly interesting, even though it's not particularly fashionable at the moment.
Speaker 1:But I do like those lines. What's your favorite way to study the game?
Speaker 2:It's one of those things where, because it's so much easier to study on a computer screen, it ends up being what I do more often than I 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 and whatever book I'm working on. More recently I was doing a rerun of some 1953 Candidates games, whether it's something like 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, sitting at a board with a book and slowly going through a game or a problem is still my favorite way to study.
Speaker 1:If you had to choose a career other than chess, what would it be?
Speaker 2:I mean, I would go with one of my hobbies, I guess. So at the moment I really like to cook. I don't think I could be an actual kitchen cook, that's the problem, but I do like to cook and I really enjoy music, so some kind of. At the moment I'm learning guitar and stuff, but I'm not particularly attached to that, it's more just, I like music in general, so some sort of musician would be, I think, really cool.
Speaker 1:I'm a huge music fan myself, so I'm resisting the urge to go down a rabbit hole and talking about music.
Speaker 2:It's all good. You can bore your listeners as much as you want.
Speaker 1:Final question. All good, you can bore your listeners as much as you want.
Speaker 2: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 not hanging my pieces like I'm like everyone else really I'm an everyman when it comes to that I just I don't want to just hang something. I would like to play a complex game and have it end in a normal way and not have it be just. Well, Josh, you just blundered a rook in this variation. What are you doing? I would like to cut that out.
Speaker 1:I guess I don't know, I feel like, okay, this is going to sound silly maybe, but hearing a GM say they don't want to hang their pieces, I assume that means like missing some kind of like five move tactical. You would assume that.
Speaker 2:But no, it's honestly like silly oversights in general. Now again, obviously, with each level of silly oversights a different thing. But you know, and I noticed it because I'm not currently as much in practice and I study with someone who's in much better practice than I am and and we're going over lines and I'll do fine, but there'll be a period where we're calculating a line and it could be a move, two, three, whatever, and I say something and then he's quiet and I'm like okay, I did something and it was like I either misplaced a piece or did something in the middle of a line. And I think that in general, chess is a lot more interesting when you're not making dumb mistakes. So I think everyone makes dumb mistakes. Just the question of what that entails for Carlson is going to be different than me, then it's going to be different than a club player, right?
Speaker 1:Right, well, josh, I had a fantastic conversation with you. I really enjoyed talking about all things chess. You're doing great work with your YouTube channel, with the Chessable courses and, I'm sure, with your students too, and so, yeah, I just want to say I really enjoyed our conversation and had a fantastic time talking with you, so thank you for being here.
Speaker 2:Yeah, thanks for inviting me and yeah, hope people like it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm sure they will, and thank you again. Thanks for listening. This has been a production of my business, adult Chess Academy, and that has a website with the same name. If you want to look for it, you can also find me being way too active on Twitter by searching my username lona underscore chess. See you next week.
