Missing a mate in 92

Yesterday I mist another mate in a clogged up position. Can you find the mate in 92?

I was wrong

I was able to reconstruct one of the positions from last saturday. I just grabbed a pawn (with white) from b5 and my opponent played Ra8-c8. Mousetrapper was right: there IS a winning tactic. Solution[1.Bf6 g5 2.Qh3 Rg6 3.Rxh7 will do the job .]

These were the kind of positions I got in 4 times out of 4 last saturday. Still I got only 2 points from it due to time trouble. What can I learn from this?

I have great difficulty to visualize these clogged positions. CTS hasn't this kind of positions. So I must use a different problemset and try to train this.

But is my conclusion right, can white head for a winning endgame too?
BTW my opponent sacrificed a knight and got away with eternal check due to time trouble at both sides.

Picture of the tournament (180 participants)

Horsey

GM Loek van Wely has won a horse at the Remco Heite chess tournament.

Rapid Cream Chess

Yesterday we participated in the 34th ERU Goldcup Cream Cheese Rapid Chess Tournament among 180 other players. I always use that to find out where I'm standing and to adjust my training for the Corus tournament.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret the results.


I played four g/30 games against equal rated opposition and I scored +1 =2 -1
I totally overplayed all players in the opening.
In the middlegame they were quite paralysed and deprived from any space. Every move of any piece but one would result in mate or loss of material. But they were good defenders and moved just Rb1 and back to a1 waiting for me to finish them off. Since all my pieces but one were needed to maintain the pressure, I didn't know how to continue, so the time started to play a big role. And that was costing me points.

But how to interprete this? My opening play is clearly pretty strong, but I have trouble to finish them off. They all said they were lost and that I could win earlier, but I don't agree with them. They had defensive resources that I saw but they apparently did not.

I had these kind of results before and I concluded then that I needed more tactical skills to finish them off within the time. Now that my tactical skills have increased greatly, I see more opportunities to pressurize them but at the same time a see much more defensive resources for them. So I still can't crush them. And to gamble they won't see the defensive resources is beyond my character.

So I need a plan B.
I guess that must be to trade most pieces and to head for a good endgame.
I will have to experiment if that is a solution.

At least I won a book voucher and a few cups of cream cheese.

Answer to Nezha

Nezha asked me the following:

Tempo - Is this what you've done:

1. Study tactics for 3+ years
2. Then learn "basic" positional play.

However, i've always assumed that you already know basic positional play. Or there is something different from this book. Like it presented the material more clearly, etc.. (For example, I read Euwe's book and it left my head spinning. It was too soon that time. I could'nt follow the lines)

Nezha, you miss the main point. I already knew basic positional play. As all experienced amateurs I knew about holes, outposts, bishoppair, double pawns and the like. As everybody I felt it as a revelation when confronted for the first time with this material. As everybody I was disappointed when I got the bishoppair after a long struggle and then lost it within two moves by a stupid knight. I just lacked the tactical skill to work with positional idea's.

First: tactics.
After a long tactical training, I'm now pretty well able to reach what I want and to keep it. Tactics are no longer a goal in itself but it became a means to reach a goal.

Second: positional play.
I see tactics pretty fast now. But when there are no tactics I start to use time because I have little experience with positional moves. I never trained them. I'm inclined to look for deeper tactics instead. Using exorbitant amounts of time. Doing the strategical modules of PCT helps me to see simple positional ideas faster.
Seeing simple positional ideas fast makes my games longer. The longer my games, the more chance that my opponent makes a tactical mistake along the way. With short games in time trouble I always had to accept draws from lesser players.

Third: strategy.
Especially the knowledge of pawn structures has lead to the insight that it is possible to have long term plans. I always thought that was nonsense because I looked at a chess game as a ship with two captains. You can't predict whereto a ship with two captains will be going.
But that is not true. With pawns you can cut out possibilities or introduce new possibilities for a much longer term. You have to place your pieces in accordance with the pawn structure to get maximum coordination of your pieces.
This strategical knowledge was always lost in the tsunami of positional information. Now I know where to look for I am able to find the important information.
I started with correspondence chess in order to learn to apply the new acquired knowledge.

I use the following books:
Pawn structure chess - Soltis
Chess fundamentals - Capablanca
World championship matches 1921 - 1927 - Capablanca
Good moves guide - Larsen

Lack of a systematic approach

Today I used 2 hours to analyse a chessposition for a RHP-game. Afterwards I had the feeling I had only scratched the surface. I lack a good method to dissect a position. I ordered the book of Karpov "Stellungsbeurteilung und plan", but it is out of stock.

If I can't analyse a position within 2 hours, then a move in an OTB game with only 3 minutes time at average can be called "near random".
First I have to learn to analyse a position "at all".
Then I have to learn to do it within 3 minutes.

You can only catch a duck when it is sitting

Law of J'adoube: tactics flow natural from good positions. But what is a good position asked Nezha? In order to find out, I did some experiments today.

Most opponents of equal strenght are about equal in tactical skills. If they are not, one can outwit the other. The only thing that is needed is a complex position. No matter if it is better or worse. That's why a better player can give a knight beforehand and still win the game.

If you are of equal strength, and of equal tactical ability, you can win if you have for instance superior endgame skills. In that case you need a quiet position that is likely to trade off pieces and reach an endgame.

If all skills are equal, tactical, positional, endgame and the like, then a good position would make the difference.

Today I let two engines play together: Toga II and SOS. From those is Toga to be known as the stronger engine. Toga won all regular games.
I think that a better position is related to the amount of space every piece has. If both pieces have equal space, usually every threat can be met.
The amount of space that is available to both your opponents and your own pieces, is regulated by the pawns. They form the landscape which is the background of the battle.

To proof my hypothesis I let Toga II and SOS battle from the following position:

diagram 1
























It is different from the initial position because I didn't want a capture at move one. I tried different scenario's, but they all ended in a draw. No matter who was the first to move.

Hypothesis of Temposchlucker:
Positions with no pawns and equal material tend to draw.

It are the pawns that form a good position by restricting the pieces. You can only catch a duck when it is sitting.
In the mean time J'adoube had a revelation that within the same pawn structure pieces can be placed good or bad.

Old habits never die

I fired up a few studygames at RedHotPawn. Boy, that's a fun way of playing chess! It is really a relaxed idea to have 3 days for one move. I'm trying to play in Capablanca style. Capablanca wasn't known for his great opening knowledge, but he used to play simple and healthy opening moves. I'm struggling with old habits in trying to do the same. In one of my games I allready play one of my pet gambit lines in stead of inflicting my opponent with a double pawn. It is difficult to keep an helicopterview and not to get lost in interesting complex variants.

Change of style

Since I'm in the middle of learning a new approach to chess it's evident I have to play more. Next saturday I wil play in a rapid tournament. I'm thinking about correspondence chess. Anyone an idea what are good sites?

Sitting between two chairs.

This evening I tried to ape the style of Capablanca in the opening.
It's evident I'm not used to that since after the opening my pawn structure was heavily compromised. I started an attack, but since I hadn't sacced my usual pawns, those nasty little things stood in the way. At move 30 I missed a tactic to win a pawn. Despite my drills I'm still having trouble with knight forks.
In the end when we were both in time trouble I missed the draw. It's evident that I lack endgame experience too. Alas I wasn't able to reconstruct the last 5 minutes since the caretaker wanted to close the building.
You can find the game here.

Pawn stuctures

Say you play with white a common variation of the Ruy Lopez:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Be7 10.Re1 Nc5 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.Nbd2 O-O 13.Nb3 Ne6 14.Qd3 g6

Then you find yourself in this diagram:

diagram 1























Let us suppose the game went on, and that in some way White, by playing one of the Knights to d4 at the proper time, forced the exchange of both Knights, and then afterwards both the Bishops were exchanged, and we arrived at some such position as shown in the following diagram.

diagram 2























Now we would have here the case of the backward c-pawn, which will in no way be able to advance to c5. Such a position may be said to be theoretically lost, and in practice a first-class master will invariably win it from Black.

After a few moves the position may be easily thus:

diagram 3























The Black pieces can be said to be fixed. If White plays 1.Qc3, Black must answer 1...Qd7, otherwise he will lose a pawn, and if White returns with the Queen to a3 Black will again have to return with 2...Qb7 or lose a pawn. Thus Black can only move according to White's lead, and under such conditions White can easily advance with his pawns to f4 and g4, until Black will be forced to stop f4-f5 by playing ...f7-f5, and we might have some such position as the following:

diagram 4























The game might well continue as follows

1.gxf5 gxf5 2.Qf3 Qd7 3.R5c2 Rg6 4.Rg2 Kh8 5.Rcg1 Rcg8 6.Qh5 R6xg2 7.Rxg2 Rxg2 8.Kxg2 Qg7+ 9.Kh2 Qg6 10.Qxg6 hxg6 11.b4 and white has a won pawn ending

diagram 5























This is a beautiful example from Capablanca's book Chess fundamentals.

• It shows how black comes out of the opening with a bad pawn structure.
• The light pieces are exchanged.
• A file is opened in order to exchange the heavy pieces.
• What remains is a won pawn ending.

It's a totally different way of looking at a chess game.
If you study mastergames, this kind of information is what you need to know.
This kind of strategical knowledge is hard to obtain.

Mousetrapper asked me what I will do with my "old religion" and Nezha asked me about a definite conclusion of CTS.
It's evident that you need great tactical skills to conduct a game as above. At this moment I'm in a tactical sense about 200 ratingpoints higher than my OTB rating actual shows. As said earlier, I feel like a car with a screaming engine but no clutch. At this moment it's not appropriate to continue with more tactical training. I must first fix the clutch.
So to Nezha: yes, training at CTS is very useful and will greatly improve your tactical skills. The missing thing in DLM's system is the application of your skills in OTB play. I belief to have found this missing link in pawn structure based strategy. If I manage to fix the clutch and the rest of my play becomes in accordance with my tactical skills, there might well come a moment in the future I will need more tactical skills. CTS will be first choice by then.

Converted to strategy

To do the strategical modules of PCT, you must be pretty determined.
For some reason it's much heavier than tactical problems. I'm almost half way now and I'm beginning to like it. The first half though was far from easy. Not that the problems were too dificult. Ok, the first time I was going thru the problems I made 50-70% mistakes. But after the provided explanation of the problems, most of them became clear. It's just that it takes more time before I squeeze some fun out of the process if I compare it with tactical problems.
But I'm starting to enjoy it now.
I have "learnt" (= repeated 6 times) 294 of the 720 problems.
The method of PCT comes very close to the method of the 7 circles we use.

I have a confession to make. You already guessed it of course, but I'm a convert to the positional approach to chess.
Which immediately raises an important question, "is the method of the 7 circles applicable for learning positional chess?"
If you would have asked me before, I would have said "yes".
But if you ask me now the answer would be "only partly".

Before you can convert knowledge into skill, you have to acquire the knowledge. That's true for tactics (pin, skewer, clearance, preparational move etc.) and for positional chess (weak pawns, holes, bishoppair, bad bishop etc.).
Every experienced chessplayer has this knowledge already. No matter the level of the player.
For this kind of knowledge, the 7 circles are perfect. As PCT show.

For strategy it's different. Most strategical knowledge isn't known by chessplayers at class level. The essential information is simply drowned in an information overflow. There is no doubt you have to do the 7 circles with tactical problems and with positional problems before you even start to think to obtain strategical knowledge. If you still hang pieces or forget to occupy an open line you're not ready yet.

For acquiring strategical knowledge you have to start the study of the Games Of The Masters who are exponents of strategy. Here is the list:

• Akiba Rubinstein
• Jose Raul Capablanca
• Aaron Nimzovich
• Tigran Petrosian
• Anatoly Karpov

As you see there are a lot of names missing here like Lasker, Alekhine, Botwinnik, Fischer, Kasparov etcetera. Of course that were Masters Of Strategy too. But they all had something else in their play like tactical geniality, excessive opening preparation, extreme dynamism etc. which played a big(ger) role. If you want to learn something, you have to learn it in it's purest form, so you are not distracted by non essential information.
Steinitz is excluded from the list for two reasons. First he changed from one style to another, second he applied his own rules often quite ridgid. When we are in a learning phase, we can't determine yet what to study from Steinitz and what not.
Nimzovich and Petrosian were masters of prophylaxis and overprotection.

To study the games of the strategical masters you need their games with comments.
What's important is that the commentator is biased to positional chess too.
It sounds logical to take the masters themselves as commentator but sometimes that has a downside.
If you take for instance the "greatest games" by Anatoly Karpov, you see that he is biased to his most spectacular games because the public likes that, plus he forget to tell us the things that are simple and natural for him.
So sometimes it's better to have another grandmaster as commentator.
I don't know which are the grandmasters with a preference for positional play, but Yasser Seirawan is certainly one of them.
Capablanca is a brilliant commentator who is able to sit on his knees to give the amateur excellent leasons. I like his book "Chess fundamentals" very much. I don't know wether he has written other books with commentary on games.
I don't know much about the other Masters Of Strategy or what they have written. I intend to find out.

Once the first problem to acquire the right strategical knowledge is solved, the knowledge has to be converted to strategical skill. I doubt if the 7 circles can play a big role in that. Strategical knowledge bears on plans during the entire game. So you can't seperate it from the game by looking only at positions. The most logical approach seems to be to try to apply it in your games and to analyze the results afterwards.

In the past I studied mastergames and I tried to analyse my own games.
To very little avail.
Now I know why. I didn't know which games to study and which commentators to listen to.
Analysing your own games without strategical knowledge is close to useless.

Squeeze

Actually I wanted to forget about my last game. But there is a very interesting moment in the game. After terrible opening play I entered the middlegame with a pawn down.
I have played thru a lot of games of Capablanca lately. He is a space addict. He acquires as much space as possible with every move. Until tactical posibilities seem to appear out of the blue.
I was probably lost before move 18. But at move 18 I started to ape the style of Capablanca. My opponent had clearly no idea what I was doing. It's remarkable how much space I gained within only 3 moves. The character of the game changed totally within these 3 moves. It looked like magic!
You can find the game here.

Blehhhh!!

I hate to play against those 13 y.o wonderboys!
He played the French. Why do those boys always play the French?
I played the Alapin Diemer gambit. After ill-treating the opening in a terrible way I gave him the chance to trade off a lot of pieces and I was left a pawn down. Mentally I already had agreed to trade the rooks and the queens further in an attempt to hold the draw in an endgame with bishops of different color. At move 14 I had no idea how strong he actually was because I had done all the (miserable) work by myself.

Then you feel punished! I mean, I'm overhauling already my repertoire to make it more solid, but I can't do everything at the same time and now this!
I remembered the style of Capablanca and I started to squeeze him out. I even resisted a schwindle which would have given him a chance to penetrate at my side of the board. I forced his pieces to the back two ranks. And indeed, the tactical opportunities came all by themself! Just by diminishing the territory of your opponent. I won his queen for a rook. Then I had a double attack against his king and unprotected rook. Then I had again a double attack and fetched his other rook. Why do coaches always forget to learn their pupils to resign?
I had to mate him.
Man, I hate those games against kids!

Revamp

Pawn Structure Chess of Andre Soltis is really an excellent book.
It explains that there are about a dozen different pawn formations. Different openings can lead to one and the same pawn formation. The book describes what the plans are for both sides for every formation. It really gives a deeper insight.

While studying the book I use it to revamp my openings. I have a few holes in my repertoire and the book assists me to fill them.
For instance I have played the classical dutch defense in the past. With little success. I tried to revive it with the aid of the book. And although I failed to do so, at least it I understand now why I had so little success with it. I tried to accomplish the wrong things in the opening. For realisation of the right plans in the dutch you are dependend of positional mistakes of your opponent. If I was a grandmaster I should try to change the opening according to the logic of the pawn structure. But that is way beyond my capabilities. Yet:)

I have played the Benko gambit in the past with little success either. The main reason for that was that my opponents seldom played the book moves, and I wasn't able to punish them for that. The book helps me out.

Further I had always problems when white played 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3
With the aid of the games of Karpov I'm building an answer for that. Karpov plays the Queen Indian. He for sure has an eye for pawn structures!

The book has one downside, it's not in algebraic notation but in some funny nostalgic notation. I already use two systems, english and dutch, but this third system uses the "P" for pawn. "P" in the dutch algebraic system is the symbol for the knight. So I really have to stay alert!

PCT is still going strong for the simple straight forward positional moves. I didn't know I was so bad in that!

With Margriet I study a game of Capablanca a day. Great games!

Be flexible.

Update: Please all welcome our newest Knight Karpyan.
May his pieces stay longer with him than his girlfriend!




















If my insights change 180 degrees every half hour I'm very happy with that. It means that my insight is growing. It's just a matter of not to be bound at a certain opinion, no matter how true it might look at a certain moment. At the mean time I realize that you as reader of my blog have you be very flexible. I appreciate your patience! It's Blue Devil who is to blame. He asks such good questions!

Blue Devil asked if it is true what MDLM said (free citation):

At class level the tactical opportunities DO appear out of thin air.
So Positional, Middlegame, Strategic (PMS) play is NOT required at class level.

This was my comment:

very good you ask this question again!
I'm much better in tactics than I was before the circles. But it doesn't pay off, ratingwise.
The reason is that I often reach a good position, but that at a certain moment the position is quiet. At that moment I start to use time. I come in time trouble and have to draw or even worse.

The average length of my games is about 25 moves. That is extreme short. What I'm gonna say now may sound very weird. But if my average game length was 75 moves, I had 3 times as much chance to outplay my opponent tactically.

So I must learn to move fast in quiet positions. Which brings us to the question: "must that be a PMS-certified-move?"

The answer is: probably not. If it is a mediocre move that just keeps the game going, that's probably good enough.

But I'm just not able to produce conscious a mediocre move! If my candidate move isn't good enough, I go into hibernation untill I have found something better.
So if I have to learn to make any move just to keep the game going, I prefer that it is a PMS-certified-move.


And that's how it is. I have tasted the potency of positional insight, and I want more!
Margriet and I have finished Yasser's book and we are now playing thru the games of Capablanca, commented by the master himself.

If I make a move, I always had the idea that the possibilities were infinite. That if I would move a knight to the rim, that there would always come a moment that I could bring it back to the center.
But in practice that possibility is non existent most of the times. Every move excludes heaps of possibilities. That's why every game is so different. Have you ever played two games that were close lookalikes?
Study of pawn play lifts a tip of the veil and shows what you are excluding with every pawn move. How you can rule out the possibilities of the opponent while increasing the possibilities of your own.

There is a lot of work to do.
We started with the excellent book "Pawn structure chess" of Andrew Soltis. Hattip to Sancho.
To learn to move in quiet positions we do the strategic modules of PCT. I'm busy with module 2 and have an error rate of about 70% the first time. Which gives enough room for improvement:)

Is the method of MDLM flawed?

The method that MDLM used can't be flawed, since his result is a proven fact.
But what about the method he advocates in his book Rapid chess improvement and his articles 400 points in 400 days?
The program he describes there lasts 127 days and is aiming at adult class players.
You can expect a rating improvement of 127 points if you do this program.
The Knights Errant have done or are busy with this program.
If you look at the average result of the graduated knights, the landmark of 127 points is exceeded by far.
So statistically the method he advocates in is book and articles isn't flawed either.

But. . .
There are a few other things:

1st. Not every knight managed to increase 127 points.
I, for instance, started with 1701 points and have now 1743 points.
For that improvement I needed about 640 days.
I did 7 x the problems of step 3-5 from TCT (=7 x ca 1500)
I did 7 x the 1359 problems of George Renko
And I did 7 x the problemwindow of CTS, (7 x 10,000; gaining 120 rtg points at CTS)
If I analize with higher rated players, I estimate my improved tactical ability equal to 1900-2000 rated players. Yet it doesn't show in my OTB-rating.

2nd. It is not so likely that the 127 points in 127 days of most Knights Errant who scored beyond the landmark can be extrapolated to 400 points in 400 days.

3rd. The idea that chess is 99% tactics (not heralded by MDLM but by Teichman!) is definitely busted.

4th. Sofar nobody of the Knights Errant has equaled the performance of MDLM.

I'm content with my results, since I was plateauing on 1701 for long, and now I'm on the move again. Of course I had hoped for more.
The facts above raise some questions.

Why is there so much difference in result of the program between the Knights?
Why scored MDLM himself so well?
Why score I so bad while I'm tactical so much better than I was?
Why can prodigies improve so fast?

In an attempt to answer these questions, I made an assumption that MDLM hasn't told us everything. Not on purpose, but because either he didn't know or he didn't realize the importance.
If I look what hampers my own development the most, I see a great lack of Positional Strategic Pawn Structure Crap (PSPSC).
So now I formulate the hypothesis that this PSPSC is what is missing in the method of DLM.
The crap proves to be fertilizer.

Why was the development of MDLM himself not hampered by a lack of PSPSC?
A few Knights assumed that he had studied positional stuff before but since he was a bad tactician, it didn't bear fruit. His tactical improvement unleashed his positional knowledge, as it were.
I'm always a bit reluctant when things look so simple.
I have done a lot of positional study myself before. Why was that knowledge not unleashed by the program? I think there must be at least one other element that plays a role. Maybe that was indeed the fact that he played ca. 200 games in two years during the program. I haven't played that much the last two years, about 50 games in all. Or is there still something else?
If I look at the prodigies, they all have a coach at masterlevel who takes care of their positional development, so tactical improvement is what they are busy with.

So all in all the program of MDLM is ok, but some PSPSC has to be added.

The missing link

Train like an animal.
Eat like a horse.
Sleep like a baby.
Grow like a weed.









I always had the feeling that there was something missing in the method of DLM. I have done the circles 7 times or more for different types of problemsets. It gave me the feeling that my motor was running at full throttle.
But the car didn't go.
It was evident that there was something missing between the motor and the wheels. Something that DLM forgot to tell us. Either because he didn't realize the importance or he just didn't know.

I have searched for about a year what that could be.
Now I have found it.
Almost just by accident.
Well, not really of course, because I tried systematically.
What I mean to say is that I hadn't predicted it nor anticipated it.

My approach to chess was very unbalanced. You can compare it with the situation in agriculture before the discovery of fertilizer. After farming the land for centuries the land was totally exhausted. The structure of the ground was extreme good though because of all the work on the land.
With the use of only a little fertilizer the crops exploded from the land.
That's how I feel right now.
Ok, after almost two years of blogging you should be accustomed to my ravings.
This is always the finest hour, after the first premature results of an experiment speculating about the future. Without harsh facts that disturb a future expectation.
Please accept it, this enthousiasm keeps me going.

What are we talking about?
I'm talking about positional play.
About pawn play, to be precise.
I didn't know anything about pawn play.
The book "Winning chess strategies"from Yasser Seirawan was really an eye opener.
This book I got from one of the Knights who jousted me (us).
I bet that the genuine Lance Armstrong Foundation yellow "Live Strong" wristband wouldn't have improved my chess so much:)

After only two weeks study of the PCT strategy module and Yasser's book, both Margriet and I showed a remarkable difference in our play. I saw totally new things in my game that I would have missed before. It was quite evident that my opponent missed it too.
Margriet played 4 times with a 1696 guy. One slow and three blitz games. She won the slow game and two of the three blitz games.

I don't know where this is going to lead me. What I do know though, is that seeing things that I never saw before and what is very hard or impossible to see for an opponent who lacks the knowledge, must lead to extra wins.
Of course the very basis of improvement is tactical exercises. But the engine needs a clutch.

BTW I use the words "positional" and "strategical" in an interchangable way. But the words are probably not synonymous. What's the difference?

Is it really so simple?

The book of Yasser gave me a lot of insights about pawn play.
Although my knowledge is still in it's infancy I was very amazed about how fast I crushed my opponent at the club tonight by using only "soft" positional means.
White is somebody who plays the French defense for more than 40 years.
The last months he plays everyday against Fritz with the WHITE pieces, forcing Fritz (at full force!) to play the French Defense with black. He told me he wins from Fritz often lately.
I played with black the Scandinavian, what transposed into the French.
Usually this is VERY slow for black. With my new acquired positional insight though I put him simply off the board in 23 moves. He clearly had no idea what I was doing.
You can find the game here.
Man, this positonal stuff is going to give me lots of fun!!

I have to apologize to J'adoube: the French defense is NOT for old men.
I just advice beginners to start with more open games, to get the hang of kingside attacks and gambit play.

The positional school

It's difficult to find your way in the chess development jungle.
There is an abundance of good advice, often contradictory. If you follow every piece of advice you are busy for aeons, prabably ending up as a solid mediocre player. . .
What I'm doing, inventing every wheel of my own, isn't little work either, but at least I avoid double or contradictory work. What is gained on my path is gained forever.

A good teacher, be it via a book or alive, would be an enormous save of time, but finding a good teacher is as difficult as finding your way in chess land.

I have read hundreds of chess books, I learned a lot from them, but there wasn't much consistency in the matter. Good players are often not good teachers.
Because they forget to tell you what is self evident to them, or because they have no idea why they are so good since they learned it at a young age.

Good teachers often lack a good vision. To have a good vision, you have to dare to stand up against stronger players who think different. Most teachers don't dare.
Prof. Elo made the chess teachers of master level very modest.

Besides that, how do you recognize a good teacher?
Another point, you have to be ripe for the right information.

But now I'm on the trail of something.
I already knew that there was some controversy between tactical and positional players, but I always thought it was just a matter of taste. That every grandmaster was good in both.
The difficult thing is that they are.
But that doesn't mean that they are always conscious of how they do it.
There are true advocates of the positional school though. That are grandmasters that are very conscious of how they approach positional matters.
Given the fact that I have read hundreds of chess books from grandmasters and hardly ever anyone mentioned the existence of such school, it is shown how subconscious most knowledge is by most grandmasters.

I have read the book "Winning chess strategies" of Yasser Seirawan lately.
He is a true advocate of the positional school.
His chapters on pawn play really opened my eyes. Of course, every grandmaster writes about pawns. But this is the first time I see such consistent theory of it.

It is evident that I have to approach a chessgame in a totally different way. What is equally important, I'm ripe for it now. After almost 4 years tactical training under the belt, I'm not distracted by tactics anymore. My tactical skills are comparable with much higher rated players. I'am hardly ever outplayed tactically by 300+ players. On the contrary.
It's time to dig into the core now.

Yasser shows the direction.
I have to familiarize myself with a quite new way of looking to a position.
It's a pawn and space based approach. I never had an idea what was meant by "pawns are the soul of chess".
As tactician I'm used to look at the pieces. Pawns are only crowbars.
Yasser gives examples in his book, but that's far from being enough.
I won't be able to find problemsets with positional pawnbased problems solely.

So it's a matter of finding the right games and the right annotator.
For example, GM Joe Gallagher won't be of much help for learning positional chess. Not that he hasn't positional skills, he has them in abundance I'm for sure. But he doesn't know how to write about it since he likes to write about attacks.
These are advocates of the positional school I found thusfar:

• Steinitz
• Rubinstein
• Capablanca
• Nimzovich
• Petrosian
• Karpov
• Kramnik

I'm reading alot about them to determine my course the coming years.
I keep you informed.