"Simple but not easy."

What I learned listening to GM Jacob Aagaard on a few podcasts

Welcome back to Chess in Small Doses, a Substack for adult improvers in chess. Today I’m sharing with you what I’ve learned listening to one of the world’s best chess trainers talk about chess. Let’s get right into it!

Recently Dr. Can (pronounced “Jon”) Kabadayi hosted GM Jacob Aagaard on his podcast. Aagaard is never shy to share his point of view, but given all his many roles I think he’s earned the honor to be called the “top” trainer in the world (apologies to RB Ramesh). You can find the 2+ hour long video above. There were so many great tidbits like: “Release the tension only when there is a reward”; and “A 3 tempi lead is winning” that it was essentially a free lesson in how to play better chess.

However, this wasn’t the only podcast he’s been on talking about chess improvement. There was an interview on a You Tube channel called “Journey to Grandmaster” run by an IM. They went over the IM’s recent tournament games and talked about the principles of improvement. It felt like another free lesson to me.

Then there was a talk on tournament prep with the Dojo, an interview on Chess Journeys (skip ahead until 34 min left in the podcast), a Perpetual Chess interview (one of many actually), and a short interview with Hanging Pawns. I listened to them all, several times actually.

What I share with you today is my best attempt at synthesizing what he said over these multiple podcasts. Honestly, it was a lot but thankfully he has some essential recommendations that he repeats. I believe it’s what he’s learned from training and based on what he wrote in “Thinking Inside The Box”. I share them here for (hopefully) our benefit. What I write will be essentially verbatim from what he said, but will include my take in italics.

Simple but not easy

Aagaard says that chess is a simple game, but difficult. Essentially chess is a game of problem solving every time it’s your turn. The problem is basically “What should I play now?” There is a very simple process to get to that answer.

1. See what the options are (aka candidate moves);

2. Determine the consequences of those options; and

3. Choose which one you like the most.

What makes chess difficult is that most people decide ahead of time what they want the answers to be and then justify after the fact. (It is a fact that people are emotional first, logical second which is what I think Aagaard is saying here) Also, the brain doesn’t like to concentrate so hard and will try to use System 1 or intuition to solve the problem. In fact Aagaard said many GM’s don’t do this simple comparative thought process either!

He said to Dr. Can: “Playing better chess is about making better decisions, which comes from better thinking and experience in decision making.” Sitting and thinking is difficult for humans, and is a skill that needs to be developed.

But, but, but… “Before you can think, you need to learn how to see.”

Learning to See

For anyone under 1800 FIDE or “early in their development”, Aagaard repeatedly recommended a specific kind of training. To learn how to see means being able to see “all the moves for all of the pieces.” He defines calculation as seeing what is not immediately obvious to you. Strong players can work out the consequences of the move, but only after they’ve seen it. Most players have moves that are invisible to them, even Magnus Carlsen. Most players then have to train to be able to see all the moves of all of the pieces.

To do this he recommends doing “basic, simple tactics” and writing down every single move you see. “Repetition is the basis of all learning” , and “Good habits come from mass repetition.” Do these simple tactics for just 10-15 minutes a day, but do them often. Consistency is key. Don’t try to do the “best” training because the best training plan is whatever you will stick with. But doing some thinking about chess regularly will “greatly increase your strength.”

One source of the simple tactics is Lichess Puzzles but on easy mode. Turn off the rated button and select “Easy (-300)” level and just drill these puzzles repeatedly until you master seeing all the moves for all the pieces. He also recommends the Chess Steps books and the Woodpecker Method book as sources of good quality puzzles.

When you train in this way, go slow enough that you can stay in control (of your thinking). Study with focus and not while distracted. Don’t listen to music, don’t check social media, or watch TV. (Essentially don’t divide your attention.) The focus will amplify your results. (Again, he recommends short sprints of 10-15 minutes.) If you can’t focus (or single task), it’s not training.

While deeper thinking is important, it comes later in a players development. The critical first step is to learn how to see. This only comes from volume of puzzles where you train the skill.

“Modern engines are crap.”

Because modern engines are so strong, they are essentially useless for a player to understand why one move is better than another. When you ask an engine about a position now, it will say it’s equal. However, it’s only equal if the engine is playing. When humans play, they cannot calculate like engines but instead need to understand the position.

Since we cannot rely on engines to clearly differentiate one move from another, then players must analyze their own games to understand the positions they’re getting. By understand, he means be able to “write a dissertation” about it. When you analyze your games, “ask questions of the engine.” What happens when a different move is made? If you have a position that you think is winning, play it out against the engine. (Don’t trust the eval bar, instead find out why)

When analyzing (or playing) and you don’t know what to do, he recommends three questions to help you understand the position better. They are:

1. What are the weaknesses?

2. What are my opponent’s plans?

3. What is the worst placed piece?

Looking at a position in this way, will help you determine what the “truth” of the position is. (At the least you can improve the placement of your worst piece. More importantly you can try prophylaxis or preventing your opponent’s plan. Seeing the weaknesses might also help you make a 2-3 move plan to take advantage of them). After asking these question, the moves are easier to find (FM Dalton Perrine wrote about this on his Substack).

Analyzing your games this way, with an eye towards why one move is better than the other helps you to explain your decisions and understand the position.

My Take

I’m used to listening to people speak and trying to glean a cogent story from them. It’s what I do every day I work in the ER. I found listening to Aagaard both interesting and challenging. He can be longwinded at times and uses a lot of non-chess examples to highlight his points. However, his advice was so coherent and well thought out that I couldn’t help but understand what he was trying to say. Listening to him say similar things over multiple podcasts also helped reinforce his main points.

I personally found it rewarding to hear him talk about doing short sprints (10-15) of tactics training as often as possible. What I found confusing initially was his focus on “simple, basic tactics.” I thought that deliberate practice required challenging material right on the edge of our abilities. What I later understood is that is exactly what he’d recommending, but not for the tactics. He wants us to focus on the habit of seeing “all the moves for all of the pieces.” This is really hard for me. My mind likes to automatically search for familiar moves and lines. Deliberately practicing a wide, not deep search strategy is a best practice. I know I’m supposed to do it, but often I struggle. Intuition takes over and I’m 5 moves down a line, but only one line. I am like most people, we don’t do what we’re supposed to do so much as we do what is easiest and familiar.

This is Aagaard’s point. Much of the work of people like Khaneman on decision making and Erickson on deliberate practice shows that people are creatures of habit. Those habits (as we talked about previously) is often built on accident by taking the path of least resistance. In chess, it’s difficult for people to slow their thinking down and be deliberate. Only through mass repetition of intentionally searching for all the moves for all of the pieces will you develop the habit, or “learn to see”.

I believe this perspective in addition to being an experienced GM is what makes Aagaard so valuable as a trainer. He is able to get players to focus on where they are weakest and work on that. For most of us it’s our thinking. System 1 predominates, and is often the source of our greatest errors. Playing better chess is about making better decisions, and he appears to have broken down the process of improving decision making into multiple small steps. Learn to see first and then learn to think.

I encourage you to watch the interview with Dr. Can as well as the one on Journey to Grandmaster. They are essentially free lessons worth your time.

Thanks for reading, I hope this was helpful to you. I know it was for me. I’ll come back to the points contained in here in later posts. Until then, good luck with your chess!