Chess Improvement Q & A with Top Trainer and Author, GM Wojciech Moranda

[@ChessWithMouselip]

Great episode. Lots of excellent information and I have not yet finished the episode! I did want to comment that around 46 minutes there is an anecdotal mention of the Polgar Mate in Two problems that an un-named coach promoted as a way to get better at calculation. I immediately thought of GM Jesse Kraai in the Chess Dojo. I am part of the Chess Dojo and I know that GM Kraai emphasizes doing the Polgar Mate in Two puzzles but he does not claim that it improves calculation. Instead he says that these types of puzzles promote 5 things -- none of which is improving calculation. He says the mate-in-two puzzles 1) provide fundamental mating patterns, 2) show up in real games, 3) they ingrain the sense of zugzwang, 4) they promote getting a "grip" on the entire board, and, 5) the more difficult problems promote level 2 thinking. If the student is talking about the Dojo training program, then the student may have misunderstood the reason behind being tasked with doing the Polgar Mate in Two puzzles. This is GM Kraai's video about his love of the Polgar Mate in Two problems. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5LViYSuibZ_jZo Back to the program...

[@wojciechmoranda2379]

Hi Tyrin! This is GM Wojciech Moranda. Thank you very much for dedicating the time to listening to this episode of the podcast - it means a lot to me! I just wanted to clarify that the coach/player whom I had in mind in this context was definitely NOT GM Jesse Kraai whose training methods I am not familiar with at all (although pretty sure that he is a great coach and a player). Solving mate-in-two exercises can certainly be beneficial for many players of different levels, but for the sake of clarity, when it goes for calculation training per se, there are better methods available.

[@KeepChessSimple]

@@wojciechmoranda2379 Very insightful interview. What ARE good exercises for calculation then? I always had the idea that 'easy' tactics are for pattern recognition and hard tactics are fine for calculation. For example if you solve on Chesstempo on standard mode, your rating goes up and it presents you harder problems. Up untill a point where it can sometimes take 15-30 minutes to solve the problem because it is a very difficult problem. At such a moment I have the feeling that I very carefully have to calculate candidate moves to find the problem because it is so hard for me to visualize everything. Is this calculation training? I feel like for lower rated players even mate in 5's are hard and require calculation because calculating and visualizing something 5 moves deep isn't the most easy thing, even if the moves are forced. If not, what would be good exercises? Things like endgame studies or exercises from strategic books like Mastering Chess Strategy?

[@wojciechmoranda2379]

​@@KeepChessSimpleChessTempo is a great website but certainly not all of the tactical puzzles available there are suitable for calculation training. You rather need a source/book that differentiates between specific elements of chess calculation methodology and then provides you with respective examples to solve. I will be writing something like this in the coming years, but until it happens I can wholeheartedly recommend Jacob Aagaard's Calculation for starters.

[@KeepChessSimple]

@@wojciechmoranda2379 Thank you very much for answering. Do you mean the 'Grandmaster Preparation one on Calculation?

[@wojciechmoranda2379]

​@@KeepChessSimpleExactly

[@Glicerol]

This is one of the best episodes if not the best, so many insights and a few chess myths about chess training busted. BTW I remember we played in the same blitz tournament (polish championship) in Olkusz blitz in 2001, nowadays at least 6 players from this tournament are GMS - Wojtaszek, Czarnota, Stopa, Bulski, Tazbir, Moranda. Nice memories

[@mcronrn]

Fun and informative interview! I like the point about playing a pawn down to lessen one’s materialism. Playing my dad in the 80’s (he was my only opponent, and we knew nothing, playing Philidor vs Philidor, super solid dull stuff), I never sacrificed anything, never risked anything, never castled queenside… Returning to chess after the Queen’s Gambit, I wanted to play more fun chess and chose the King’s (Bishop’s) Gambit! Now I’m fine castling behind a single pawn! 🤣🙏

[@stuarthayward4756]

high quality guest, thank-you

[@ronfuse6993]

Great interview 👍 👏

[@keithwald5349]

My guess is that the titled players who dismiss that de la Maza stuff don't know what it's like to be tactically deficient, either because of their obvious talent or because it was corrected so early in their childhood that it's no longer a consideration. All that positional understanding stuff is obviously essential, and arguably what real chess is all about - once you stop hanging pieces!

[@wojciechmoranda2379]

Hi! Thank you very much for your comment. It is not that I dismiss de la Maza's work - it is rather that I simply never stumbled upon his books before. A lot of my effort when working with adult improvers on a daily basis pertains exactly to fixing their tactical/calculation deficiencies. And also, just for the record, GMs do know how it feels to be tactically deficient, especially when they get beaten by an even bigger dog in some dynamic slugfest of a game...

[@keithwald5349]

@@wojciechmoranda2379 Oh, Mr. Moranda, I did not mean you, and you certainly did not dismiss that book. (How could you since you hadn't seen it?) I was referring to some other players who have publicly dismissed that approach. That book has a particularly controversial reputation among some public chess figures, so when it came up I chimed in. I was speaking only about that book and those who have dismissed it. I absolutely was not referring to you, and I apologize if it appeared that way. I very much enjoyed your appearance here and intend to follow you more closely in the future. There are not many GMs who actually take an interest in the struggles of adult chess improvers, and I appreciate your attention to this subject.