The Controversial Exercise from Ramesh's Calculation Book

[@mikecantreed]

I wonder how much Pragg sees in 5-8 minutes.

[@nomoreblitz]

Just like a great teacher, Ramesh presumed you're wrong; defended himself to the death; and never understood what he was fighting against.

[@schachbetrachtungen1242]

Excellent arguments, clearly laid out while at the same time refraining from turning it into an attack on the person. This is how I wish more debates on the internet would play out: Passionately, but with logical arguments, occasionally questioning one's own perspective and without trying to 'destroy' the 'opponent'. In the last ten years or so general politics seems to have taken on a lot of the unfortunate characteristics that were common in online debates before, so a general change in this direction may be helpful in more ways than just for improving debate culture online.

[@joeshmo546]

Regardless of the controversy, your calculation is insane!

[@ChessLifestyle]

Idk man, maybe 1600 on a good day 😂😂

[@joeshmo546]

@@ChessLifestyle haha

[@The_Sigmas170]

​@@ChessLifestyleis improve your chess calculation a good book?

[@Your2ndPlanB]

Just letting you know that the length of this video is the taxicab number xD (at least in thumbnail)

[@morphable4886]

The number of your taxicab? Seems like a dull number to me. Hope it's not a bad omen for you.

[@ChessLifestyle]

I thought this was the most random comment ever, but I see that it's actually a mathematical idea! That's cool haha

[@fabianvivasz]

As a FM and coach myself (2384 Fide now), I've got to say that this puzzle was difficult for me (I also missed ...b4!!), eventually I wan able to conclude that Rxd6 didn't work bcs of the line you mentioned and settled for the Bxe5, Ne6 idea as what I would do in a game but I wasn't sure the advantage was decisive. I agree that the puzzle is very challenging (I would say at least it should be for 2100+) but also I would like to encourage you to approach in another way, see it as analytical challenge where you need to find the truth about the position (as if you were playing the game) instead of "Finding a forced win". I think calculation is ultimately not about the answers but about the search and developing good habits and thinking processes. Maybe Ramesh's book is not ideal for you, I would highly recommend you Aagard's calculation techniques. Cheers!

[@roland_k1889]

The screen shot from Ramesh' book includes the first moves of the solution. My first reading of the Ramesh tweet was that a 1600 (working hard) should at least consider the variations beginning 2.Ne6. As you and the comments say, Indian grades are ridiculously low. 1600-2000 (a big range) might equate to ->2300 or more to see all of the variations. ... b4 Ramesh missed, deep in a long line, perhaps found with an engine's help. Otherwise I agree with what you have said, very well expressed. Working on such a rich position, though ultimately unsatisfactory, would improve anyone's skill.

[@joeldick6871]

One thing is certain: this example will be very deeply embedded in your mind, and if any of the ideas im this puzzle comes up in a game, you'll be sure to see it much more quickly. The most important thing to do when reading chess book is to ENGAGE with the problems, and that you certainly have done.

[@pierQRzt180]

Hold up with your Nakamura arrows! From time to time is nice to see the moves you mean (after the arrows). Kudos for the effort!

[@unlvchess1079]

Don’t worry Michael we all love you

[@Swishead]

I saw the title for this video as I was going through some of this book yesterday, and lo-and-behold I did this exact same exercise yesterday as well. I have a few thoughts: Ramesh's definitions of certain concepts seem very loose or inappropriate. He defines forcing moves as being 'checks, captures, threats or pawn breaks' (page 198). The problem with this is, it hardly narrows our analysis at all. There are an unbelievable amount of moves falling under this category in most chess positions, especially looking lines deep with variations, as the order of moves multiply. The concept of 'threat' is also hard to understand, because in this book, 'threat' often means a move, after which there is a variation resulting in a better position for the side that made it. This hardly seems 'forcing' to me, because after a threat, the other side will have many conceivable responses. The point is that they cannot escape whatever the threat was, but this is a higher-level concept than say a check, which truly does 'force' things. A threat should be a separate (or extended) concept because it ultimately RESULTS in a check or a capture, it is not one in itself. After a pawn break as well, there are often MANY responses available (trading, extending, ignoring and so on) which can have a mix of concrete lines and long term strategic ideas associated to it. Therefore, the concept of a forcing move should be broken down into other categories which are tackled separately. I think this is because the idea of calculation in general is inseparable from various principles, but this is often suppressed in the analysis. If there are things in common with all of the devolved categories, then they can be pointed out in that new setting. For this puzzle, I basically failed (I am 1920 on Lichess). I tried some stuff that is clearly dumb but still falls under 'forcing move' according to Ramesh. I tried Qxg7 and Rxf7. (I clearly need some method of efficiently dismissing moves, but I haven't seen any comment from Ramesh on this) I spent a minute on Ng6+ hxg6 (I saw fxg6 Rxf8#) Qh4+ with no follow up... After a few minutes I found Bxe5 dxe5 Ne5 fork (using the pin on the f pawn). Unfortunately I thought that following up with Qe7, double attacking the white knight and rook, Nxf8 Qxf6 essentially traps the white knight, 'refuting' my idea of Ne5+. I simply missed that Qe7 hangs Qg7#! I can't blame anyone but myself for this, and it is certainly a forcing move! But it's not obvious to me that this was through lack of effort or concentration (I really was trying). There are many reasons a player could get this position wrong. They are not sufficiently good at making use of pins, they don't try changing the order of trades enough, they struggle to count material balance in lines with many captures, they aren't familiar enough with the factors of king safety (pawn cover, attacking vs defending pieces etc.), they don't look for standard mating patterns! There are precisely no mentions of any of these principles in the analysis paragraph, or insights into how one might find these moves. I find it funny that Ramesh missed b4, even though it's a 'forcing move' by his definition! The paragraph you highlight is extremely unhelpful in my opinion. 'Try harder' without any insight as to what to look for in a position. Not exactly a confidence booster to the vast majority of club players (who this is explicitly marketed toward) who will not find all he moves given in the analysis. Of course, this puzzle is not to be taken in isolation, and there are many helpful comments in the book. I like very much page 34 game 8 where you must find a forced draw. I think having done this exercise will save me a game at some point in my chess life. He mentions the psychology (and concrete use of tactics) in active vs passive defense (page 36). On page 216 he comments that 'opening up lines is a good way to increase the efficiency of the bishops and rook' which is very instructive and we directly see it in action. So there are many good things about this book, and I will continue reading it. I have loved his choice of positions and some of his explanations with principles are helpful. But it cannot be called properly systematic in my opinion. Sorry about this ridiculously long comment.

[@ChessLifestyle]

Hahaha seems like you came to the right video! 😂 And thank you for the ridiculously long comment - it's inspired me to at least check out the pages and sections you mentioned that you felt were particularly useful for your chess. Maybe it will do my chess some good too :)

[@laszlokorosi9012]

I stopped the video to find the "forced win" continuation. I spent a lot of time in frustration, dismissing countless lines without finding the forced win. The source of frustration became clear after watching the rest of the video. "Forced win" in the vast majority of chess analysis books (or puzzles) means mate, or clear material advantage - not a somewhat better endgame!

[@jholyhead]

It was a great video, but when you interrupted your own rant at the end - I died. I'm dead now.

[@ChessLifestyle]

Honestly 😂😂 legit i was 45 minutes late to my calculation training with my mate, so I had to cut it short to get the upload out 😭😭

[@stevenvandenbussche2897]

Now you're going to blame me? 😂

[@mikerahal]

5.Cc5! (against 4...Re8) instead of 5.Rxf7 (complicated) wins a clean pawn for White in the main line. That would be enough for me to choose 1.Bxe5 instead of 1.Txd6, apart from the fact that you always choose the more forcing line as your first calculation option. Not so dificult to see Qf2 and recapture with the rook for an Indian up and coming 1600 youngster (+/- 2000/2100 FIDE - few events their), which are probably Ramesh's main type of students.

[@ChessLifestyle]

If that's the case, why did Ramesh only offer 5.Rxf7 in his book? Or are you admitting to Ramesh making a mistake - a mistake that "Indian 1600s" wouldn't even make?

[@DagarMan0]

i loved this video, i spotted the first continuation, while i didn't see as far as the check with 4. ... fxg6+, but it did not feel as complicated to cause all of his tweets on writing books, so i knew i was missing something i looked at the second one, but was seriously struggling to find black's response to 2. Ne6 , so i thought it could not be it, boy was i wrong and straight up calling people out for low effort when he himself missed the refuting move is straight up poetic

[@joeldick6871]

Well done video.

[@MistaMasta12]

I commented on Twitter - will add here that I agree that the puzzles are quite difficult for the stated level and that those comments about lack of effort can be discouraging. I like the exercises in the book but I just assume every single one is going to be difficult. Anyway, good luck with your calculation training!

[@ChessLifestyle]

Yup, that's how I'm treating it! Just sticking to level 1 and 2 for now, but trying to solve every puzzle as if they have a million resources, so has been a good workout so far!

[@MistaMasta12]

@@ChessLifestyle Awesome. When looking at some of the analysis for level 4 problems (haven't come across a level 5 yet) it can run for multiple pages and many moves are not at all obvious to me. I guess I'll just have to keep working hard :-)

[@alboresivn7012]

no creo que desalentador sea el término correcto a esos comentarios de Ramesh...¿por qué no usarlo para presionarse uno mismo y salir de la comodidad? en general creo que ramesh habla por su experiencia entrenando, sabe que la mayoría somos flojos para calcular, para entrenar, para estudiar y generaliza pero eso debe servir para demostrarle que está equivocado de una u otra manera. Imagino a todos sus alumnos si se traumaran cuando ramesh los llama flojos

[@brandonmoore6380]

Was there any conversation on twitter about the solution given by Ramesh being flat out incorrect? On a side note there’s a chess dojo video about an Aagaard problem in his book ‘Calculation’ being highly unclear with the author presuming the evaluation of the final position as obvious. I’m quite certain that these illustrious trainers comb through their books with modern engines, so it’s inexcusable hypocrisy to miss b4 as it takes stockfish seconds to find it down the line.

[@mikecantreed]

When this book came out I thought Ramesh himself said it was absurdly difficult. Does Ramesh even know any 1600s?

[@jlconn9142]

I think you're both correct. Ramesh is correct in what he says - you *should* see all forcing moves. 3...Qe7 is a forcing move (captures, checks, threats - it threatened knight and rook). You pointed out some good lines that he failed to mention (your variations after 1.Rxd6 should certainly have been mentioned, and maybe also the key variations after 1.Ng6, considering the rating range for the puzzle), and you also - I think correctly - pointed out that the line he did mention may not be convincing to the lower levels of that range. I think his final paragraph is simply a factual statement, and instead of taking it personally, we should just continue on, and try harder next time. But so should he, in including ALL of the forcing lines and why they do or do not work. I think you put in some good effort, made some good calculations, and you can give yourself a lot of credit while acknowledging that you didn't find the best line.

[@jlconn9142]

By the way, this video actually convinced me to purchase Ramesh's book sooner than I'd intended. I'd be interested to see any and all lines that you considered and that you think should be covered in the answer notes. (Idea for future videos)

[@centerpawns1446]

nice vid and yoo you play shogi 👀

[@duncanapiyo6412]

English is not Ramesh's first language also. As many of the book writers in the planet. In Africa we know lik 4 languages. So we all have our flaws. As i pointed even stockfish 16.1 still gets beaten.

[@greamespens1460]

White can move Knight to G5 then move their Queen to G7.

[@battlescard213]

did you find anymore flaws in the book? Please inform before I purchase the book. Thanx

[@FrankieKato149]

Ramesh makes mistakes too but he wont admit that cause he feel superior yet Magnus will whip his ass with eyes closed.

[@Opferschach]

I remember back in 2020 I think it was, or the early 2021, I popped up into Ramesh's Twitch stream. He was giving a lesson to IM Attila Turzo. I saw a person I knew being in the chat, and I talked to him, and then I wrote that I wouldn't be able to calculate that position in a game, I am an intuitive player, and intuitively I would play that. I didn't even know Ramesh was keeping an eye on the chat. But he did, and to my surprise he said, speaking to me: "No Opferschach, you are not an intuitive player, you are a lazy player!" Just wow. I didn't respond to that, but it was very unsettling to be called out by someone who doesn't even know me.

[@ChessLifestyle]

Honestly, I really don't understand his rationale behind making bold claims like this? It's like seeing a player sacrifice a queen and saying "it's not a queen sac, it's a blunder!!", before even looking at the position 😂😂 but what to do... hope it didn't derail your chess too much Opferschach!

[@alboresivn7012]

incluso Carlsen se ha autollamada perezoso. Creo que te lo dice como entrenador...sabe que seguramente no tienes un nivel tan fuerte como los jugadores que entrena y según su experiencia el "autoetiquetarse" no es bueno. Quizá su error existe en el hecho que realmente no te conocee pero no lo tomes personal sino como una manera de hacerte ver que quizá podrías elevar tu cálculo entrenando más y fuerte. Te lo digo porque lo he visto en varias entrevistas mencionar que es un error etiquetarse: otro ejemplo decir que eres jugador de ataque...

[@prabhatkiranmukherje]

There's a lot of culture clash and demographic mismatch here. Ramesh is used to coaching elite players, although I daresay average talents also become elite under him. The mindset is for professional play. You guys are from UK, if a bowler is spraying it all around, coaches in county junior setups may say "not enough effort". They won't be kind at any rate. The best way to look at this as old-school sports coaching. The cultural aspect is India simply doesn't really buy positive reinforcement as a coaching method. You're going to get blunt criticism. Ok, let's say he's wrong and you did try 100%, how does it matter? I mean I don't see how it hurts to move on and keep giving it everything. I don't think you're wrong about anything here, but I just don't see how it matters. His coaching clearly works. I don't see any significant number of disgruntled students. And finally his style of coaching isn't really being held out as a universal ideal, it's just what he finds appropriate. He doesn't begrudge gentler styles.

[@UselessClubFoot]

If only English was Romesh's first language....

[@duncanapiyo6412]

You should tell us your rating. Chess is not a solved game. Even stockfish 16.1 has only solved 7 pieces in the endgame. So just chill. All books have such issues.

[@anthonygross1963]

I think you should be asking yourself why you got triggered by a chess puzzle, mate.😂

[@abdulyazidaliyu3326]

I was studying a book before this and that one was difficult, then I met this and I was quite amazed at how difficult the positions were in comparison to the stated level. However it is a very impressive book that opens one's mind to several ideas and depth...I guess an indian 1600 is not necessarily the world's 1600😂. This was my counterfactual thought and I'm sticking with it, I mean look at Pragg beating Magnus. Won't be surprised if the world champion is rated 2600 in India. 🤣😂

[@prabhatkiranmukherje]

If you search Mihir Shah chess here, you'll find an Indian 1600 on top board of National blitz championship playing vs Aravind Chidambaram and even being in a winning position.

[@frays7523]

Lol bro i am sorry Ramesh should have wrote in an American/European standard this position is very simple for an Indian 1600-2000 lol such a simple position i myself am a 1100 fide rated player in India and i was able to spot all the moves except b4 and b4 is not a very human move and is very hard to find from black side. Authors make mistakes Ramesh would have missed it probably

[@bdpv02]

🤡

[@frays7523]

American/European standards are so low getting to 1600 in india is very hard and an indian 1500 can easily solve this position it's Ramesh's fault he should have given a more simple position for the muggels

[@AMultipolarWorldIsEmerging]

Good on you to call him out.. I certainly wouldn’t call all your analysis here “low effort” 😂 spot on analysis 🧐 I agree about his tone in the book.. it’s a very assuming, accusatory kind of authoritarian tone, like it’s meant to make you feel dumb. He’s too prideful , ego way too big to just admit he was wrong here

[@Yornek1]

I’m a native English speaker and I may want to say it may be a language or cultural thing. I agree with you though.