The Psychology of Draw Offers in Chess

Chess is one of the few sports where a game can end in a draw — a result that carries its own strategic and psychological weight. In most sports, there’s always a winner and a loser, but in chess (and occasionally in soccer), the possibility of a draw fundamentally changes how players think and compete.

A draw reflects a kind of balance — neither side victorious, yet neither defeated. It mirrors warfare in that sense. When two strong forces clash, victory isn’t always guaranteed. Sometimes, even the weaker side, with the right preparation and determination, can hold its ground. Think of Afghanistan — a country that has withstood invasions from some of the world’s most powerful armies, thanks to its terrain and resilience.

In chess, the same principle applies. Even the greatest player cannot avoid the result of a draw. You can dominate tournaments and win most of your games, but sooner or later, a draw is inevitable. The key, therefore, lies in being psychologically prepared — not just for the draw itself, but also for the moments when you must offer one, accept one, or play for one.

This article explores three essential situations:

1. When your opponent offers you a draw
2. When you should offer a draw yourself
3. When playing for a draw becomes a strategic choice

Handling an Opponent’s Draw Offer

At first glance, deciding whether to accept or reject a draw seems simple. But the truth is far more complex. Your choice depends on three critical factors:

• How do you feel about the position?
• What are the risks if you continue?
• What are the chances you could lose if you refuse?

How Do I Like the Position?

This, to me, is the most important question above anything else. When I was young, I was told that if your opponent offers a draw, it means they don’t like their position. That seemed true in a few cases—but over time, I realized it wasn’t so simple. People started offering draws even in positions that clearly favored them. They had other reasons—respect for me, tournament strategy, fatigue, or simple pragmatism.

So it became difficult to judge why someone was offering a draw. Was it because they disliked their position? Because they thought it was equal? Or because they were simply being cautious?

Eventually, I understood that the better question isn’t why they offered a draw—but rather, how do I feel about the position? Do I like this position? That, more than anything else, should guide my decision.

If you like the position—if you feel you have no real risk and genuine winning chances—then of course, you should continue playing. It’s perfectly fine to accept a draw here and there, but when the position favors you and you’re comfortable, there’s no reason not to push.

Understanding the Risk

This is where many players go wrong—mostly when facing lower-rated opponents. When we badly want to win, we often become blind to risk. We convince ourselves that playing on is always justified, even when the position is unclear or objectively equal.

When your opponent offers a draw in such a situation, it’s crucial to evaluate the risks objectively. Our judgment can easily get clouded by emotion, rating difference, or ambition.

I experienced this firsthand in my game against GM Hikaru Nakamura during the World Cup in Baku. The first two classical games were drawn, and we had moved into the tiebreaks. After the first rapid game also ended in a draw, we began the second. At one point, I obtained a clear advantage—but I gradually let it slip. Eventually, we reached a position where Hikaru was repeating moves (he had to), and I faced a critical decision: should I continue playing for a win or settle for a draw?

Objectively, the position was equal, though I was the one pressing. But it wasn’t the kind of “safe pressure” where there’s no risk. It was a complicated position—one where all three results were possible if I went wrong.

Initially, my instinct was to take the draw. I felt that even if I pressed, the position should still be drawn with best play. I spent about three minutes thinking, then—perhaps impulsively—decided to play for a win. Looking back, I think that decision was dubious.

I chose a sequence aimed at keeping the game alive, expecting my opponent to find the best defense and force a draw anyway. But then, Hikaru made a mistake, suddenly giving me a winning position. I had actually seen the winning move, but in the heat of the moment—and under time pressure—I underestimated it. Believing the position was still roughly equal, I played something else and ended up losing.

In hindsight, playing for a win did create the possibility of winning, but the decision was still questionable. Given the time situation, the risk was simply too high. In time scrambles, the quality of decisions drops dramatically—and that, ultimately, cost me the game.

The Likelihood of Losing

You need to answer one question honestly: how likely are you to lose compared to how likely you are to win?

This ratio will always vary from position to position. Sometimes it’s roughly 50–50, and in those cases, you can base your decision on other factors—which we’ll discuss shortly.

But once the chances of losing rise above 60%, you’re entering dangerous territory. It’s not easy to judge this precisely, but what matters is being aware of the risk before making a decision. Conscious awareness alone can prevent impulsive choices driven by emotion or ego.

We’ll soon discuss what to tell yourself when you choose to reject a draw—but before that, it’s worth looking at the other factors that can (and often do) influence your decision-making.

Other Factors That Can Influence Your Decision

• Time situation: The less time you have, the greater the risk. In time pressure, calculation quality drops and simple positions can quickly spiral out of control.
• Tournament situation: If the circumstances demand a win—say, you need one to advance or stay in contention—then taking the risk might be justified.
• Opponent’s profile: Interestingly, players often take more risks against older or inactive opponents, assuming they won’t handle dynamic complications as well.
• Rating gap: When there’s a large rating difference, you may feel compelled to reject a draw out of expectation or pride. This can be dangerous if it clouds objective judgment.

All of these factors should be considered with a grain of salt. They can easily pull you away from objectivity and lead to poor decisions. Still, there are moments when you simply have to take the plunge—when intuition tells you to go for it.

The key is balance: don’t let these external factors drive you constantly. Play boldly when it makes sense, but always with awareness of the risks involved.

How to Reframe Your Mindset When You Decline a Draw

One of the biggest challenges after rejecting a draw is the regret that can creep in later—especially when you’re playing against higher-rated or equally strong opponents.

The key is this: once you decide to play on, there should be no regrets.

Take Gukesh’s mindset in Game 6 of the World Championship as an example. The game had reached a point with moves like Qe7, Qd6, Qg5, Qd5, and so on ( See Diagram below). Black played Qh4, choosing to play for a win rather than accepting a draw.

Here’s what Gukesh said about rejecting the draw:

“I just like playing chess… It was more just the position than it was psychological. I just thought there was still a lot of play left… I did not really see too much danger for me, so I just thought I’ll make a few moves, see what happens. Obviously a draw was still the most likely result, I just wanted to get a long game especially since tomorrow is the rest day.”

From this, we can learn several important lessons:

1. Evaluate the risk carefully – Gukesh assessed that there wasn’t much danger in the position, which gave him confidence to continue.
2. Focus on the process, not the outcome – He didn’t pressure himself with “I must win now.” He simply wanted to play and see how the position evolved.
3. Treat the game normally – Rejecting a draw doesn’t mean you need to become tense or force the game. You continue as if the draw offer never happened.

The ideal mindset: Play on naturally, evaluate the position, enjoy the game, and don’t let the draw offer create stress or undue pressure.

Knowing When to Offer a Draw

1. When You’re Worse

When I was very young, I lost a lot of games because of this mistake: I rarely offered draws, even when I was clearly worse. I used to keep playing, hoping my opponent would blunder or that I might find some winning chances.

With experience, I’ve learned that it’s often less painful to agree to a draw than to suffer a loss. Interestingly, quite a few opponents accept a draw—even when I hesitate to jinx it!

From a rating perspective, draws are recoverable. A win in the next round or in a few subsequent games can easily offset a drawn game. Losses, however, are doubly damaging to your rating and harder to recover from psychologically.

2. When You Don’t Understand the Position

If you play a lot of openings, you will inevitably end up in unclear or unfamiliar positions at some point. Even with years of experience in the same openings, unknown positions can arise. If you find yourself slightly worse—or unsure of what to do—my advice is simple: consider offering a draw.

Things to keep in mind in this scenario:

Often, we don’t know how to evaluate a position. The internal monologue may sound like: “Maybe I’m better, but I have no idea what to do.” You spend 20 minutes trying to figure it out and still feel lost.

In such cases, it’s best to set aside your ego and offer a draw. I’ve lost many games by refusing to do so. If you don’t offer a draw, your uncertainty can persist into future moves, leaving you in the same uncomfortable situation even after 5–10 moves.

Now, let’s assume your opponent rejects the draw. That’s actually good news. You now have a clear mental goal: play for equality and maintain control. The uncertainty and regret vanish.

I experienced a similar situation against GM Jordan Van Foreest while playing in the French League. He surprised me in the opening, and the position quickly felt uncomfortable. Initially, I thought it couldn’t be too bad since similar positions often arise in that opening.

 I decided to offer a draw and went to the washroom, planning to continue normally if he declined. As expected, by the time I returned, he had made his move.

This was excellent news. I no longer needed to worry about the position’s evaluation. My goal was clear: play for equality, knowing my opponent likely had the advantage. In the end, I managed to save the game. 

Playing the Last Rounds or When You Don’t Feel Like Playing

There will be times when you feel conflicted. Perhaps you want to make a draw because of the tournament situation—fighting for a prize—or simply because you don’t feel like playing (maybe your opponent has a similar or higher rating). At the same time, part of you still wants to play for a win.

In such situations, offering a draw is not a bad idea. Of course, if you can focus and play without any pressure, that’s ideal. But not every game allows for that mindset. Your thoughts may constantly swirl around: Should I offer a draw? Should I play safely?

Here, offering a draw shamelessly can actually be a relief.

• If your opponent accepts, great—you can focus on the next game or secure a prize.
• If your opponent declines, that’s even better. You can play normally without regret, knowing you made the practical choice.

Playing for a Draw

I am by no means an expert in this, but playing specifically for a draw can be a powerful weapon, especially for lower-rated players. However, it should be used sparingly and only when necessary, rather than as a default strategy.

Scenarios Where Playing for a Draw Makes Sense

1. Recovering from a String of Bad Results Against Higher-Rated Players

I remember following IM Sidhant Mohapatra (though there are many other examples) in the Sitges Open one year. After a series of poor tournaments, he intentionally played for draws. One game that stands out was against GM Eltaj Safarli from Azerbaijan, where he chose the Four Knights Scotch purely to secure a draw.

The strategy worked. Minor successes restored his confidence. After a series of losses, self-doubt can be overwhelming, and in such situations, playing for a draw is a practical and psychologically smart approach.

2. Annoying Openings Against Stronger Opponents

For example, many players use the Berlin Defense because it is notoriously difficult to win against. Personally, I avoided the Berlin endgame and the famous 5.Re1 Berlin, as I found it difficult to play for a win there. Strong opponents often rely on it to force draws.

In hindsight, strategically agreeing to draws in such lines could have been beneficial. It might have discouraged higher-rated opponents from choosing that opening against me altogether.

Conclusion: Embracing the Psychology of the Draw

The psychology of draw offers isn’t about cowardice or playing it safe — it’s about self-awareness. Knowing when to push, when to hold, and when to let go.

Every draw offer tests your balance between ambition and realism, ego and objectivity. The best players are those who can make these decisions calmly, without emotion clouding their judgment.

In the end, the draw is not an escape — it’s part of the game’s beauty. It reminds us that sometimes, balance is the most powerful outcome of all.

 

Here’s How I Went From Being Stuck at 2470–2500 to 2600

I was stuck around 2470–2500 for almost five years. It was a painful phase where it felt like nothing was moving, even after I became a grandmaster. I kept making the same mistakes again and again. At some point, I decided to try something different. That change is what eventually helped me cross 2600.

Before getting into that, I want to share the backstory.

In October 2017, I reached my then peak rating of 2469 for the first time. I had a great few months and jumped from 2315 to 2469 in a short span. About a year later, I became a grandmaster and reached a new peak of 2527. I was playing very well, and that’s when things slowly started to go wrong.

I had a couple of bad tournaments. My form was off, and I lost a lot of rating. After some time, I wasn’t losing because of my chess anymore, but because the earlier losses were still affecting me. If I remember correctly, I dropped all the way back to around 2460.

A few more years passed, and I was still struggling to cross 2500. This is one of the biggest psychological problems chess players face. I call it “the grave of hundreds.”

The Grave of Hundreds

As chess players, we give a lot of importance to certain ratings—2300, 2400, 2500. Ratings like 2470, 2549, or 2586 don’t feel the same. When we set goals, they are almost always based on round numbers. Unless you’re already 2600+, then the focus shifts to 2650 or 2750.

This creates three big mental problems.

First, when we are close to one of these numbers, it is always in our head. We stop fully focusing on the game. Many players have reached 2399 or 2499 but never crossed the line to get their IM or GM titles. These rating barriers are like scoring a century in cricket. Even the best batsmen have been out in the 90s many times.

Second, the problem starts after crossing the barrier. I’ve felt this myself. You begin to doubt yourself:
                                                  “Am I really a 2500 player?”
                                    “I need to prove that I deserve to be here”

Interestingly, we don’t feel this pressure at 2498. It starts only after crossing 2500.

This becomes even harder if you lose rating and fall back into the 2400s. You’ve placed so much value on the 2500 mark that accepting being below it again becomes very difficult. Honestly, it can feel shameful.

This becomes even harder when you lose rating and fall back into the 2400s. You’ve placed so much value on the 2500 mark that accepting being below it again becomes very difficult. Honestly, it can feel shameful.

This is the third problem, and in my opinion, it is the hardest one to recover from. That feeling of shame and sadness slowly settles in and often leads to long periods of stagnation. I’ve spoken about this in my other articles as well.

 

Gukesh’s form after becoming World Champion

I think Gukesh is a tremendous player. In my opinion, people have taken his success for granted. After he won the World Championship, many noticed his sub-par performances this year, and because of that, the respect for him seems to have dropped.

From a chess point of view, Gukesh has impressed me a lot. At times, he has played out-of-this-world chess, the kind that very few players can produce. If we look at his tournament performances, what he did in the two Olympiads is insane. That level of dominance is something only a truly great player can show.

Here is my take on what might have happened with Gukesh—and I want to be clear that I could be totally wrong.

The pressure of being World Champion

I think Gukesh might also be dealing with the “grave of hundreds” problem, just in a different form. For him, it’s not about 2500 or 2800. It’s about the World Championship title.

He is facing the second problem I described earlier. He is the World Champion, and there is a constant pressure to prove that he deserves that title. The pressure has been immense, and that’s completely understandable.

Maybe he himself questions at times whether he truly deserves to be there. Maybe there’s a constant voice in his head asking him to prove it again and again. That kind of pressure can affect anyone.

One reason this pressure might feel even stronger is because he played Ding Liren, who was not at his best during the World Championship match. Because of that, the need to prove himself could feel even heavier.

Again, this is just my perspective. I could be completely wrong, and there may be many other reasons for his recent results. But from my own experience, this kind of mental weight is very real, and it can slow down even the best players.

The Change

Coming back to my story—after a 2–3 month trip, I realized it was time for a change. I wanted to try something different. This time, I planned my next tournament very deliberately, about a month later.

So what was the big change?

Killer Chess Training

I decided to sign up for an online coaching academy run by Jacob Aagaard and others. I’ve always enjoyed searching for interesting chess material online—it’s a hobby of mine. Over the years, I’ve bought many courses this way.

Before joining, I convinced a group of friends to join me in buying an Advanced Calculation course on the Killer Chess Training website. My honest opinion was that the course was very instructive, but the video classes were a bit long. Jacob is extremely passionate about teaching, and sometimes he forgets the time 😀.

This time, I decided to take a monthly membership and just try it out for a month. If I remember correctly, it cost around 150 euros.

That month, I watched a lot of classes on the website. I’ve always been a video person. I learned a lot by watching chess videos. When I was younger, I was a huge fan of ChessBase DVDs—some of them I could binge-watch for hours. So naturally, I was drawn to the video content.

Then came the Killer Homework, which was honestly torture for me. This was also their biggest selling point, especially for titled players. To be honest, I think I signed up mainly for the videos, not the homework.

The Killer Homework

The process is simple. There are 12 positions in total:

• 6 calculation positions
• 6 mixed-topic positions

You solve them to the best of your ability, write down your analysis using a PDF tool, and send the file by email. Back then, Jacob himself was correcting the homework. You would get marks—for example, 4/6 in calculation and 3/6 in mixed.

I clearly remember that my score was terrible. Jacob welcomed me to the academy and still offered some encouraging words, which meant a lot.

That month, I managed to complete quite a few homework sheets, including some older ones. I followed this semi-consistently. Watching videos, however, was very consistent. I wanted to watch as much as possible before my membership expired.

My Tournament After One Month

You might expect that after all this work, results would come immediately—but they didn’t, at least not in the first few rounds. I had a very slow start, making four draws in the first five rounds, if I remember correctly.

There was no real chance to fight for a top-four finish, which were the qualification spots for the World Cup. Still, I told myself I wanted to win the remaining four games. I even told a friend that I would win all four, just like that.

I managed to win three of them, and it almost felt like manifestation. In the last round, I couldn’t convert my chances and had to settle for a draw. In the end, I finished tied for second place.

Even so, it felt like a success to me. I had played good chess, and more importantly, I felt different. That’s when I decided to take the yearly membership.

Looking back, this felt like the new opportunity I had been quietly searching for all along.

My Next Success

The first tournament I played after buying the yearly membership was the National Championship in Delhi. My play was far from perfect, but I managed to win the National Championship, which was obviously a huge confidence boost.

After that, my games slowly started to improve. Looking back, when I first became a grandmaster and was in good form, I probably had the potential to reach 2600 quite quickly. But I can confidently say that my chess is better now than it was back then—and a big reason for that is Killer Chess Training.

What Exactly Changed After Joining Killer Chess Training?

1. I Started Solving Seriously

As I mentioned earlier, I was always a video guy, not a solver. I relied a lot on my intuition. I even believed that solving too much might ruin my intuition or my natural feel for the game.

That mindset changed. I started to solve a lot more, especially difficult positions.

2. I Focused More on Training

I stopped playing tournaments back-to-back. Instead, I chose to train more and play fewer tournaments. That balance helped me reset and improve.

3. The Way I Looked at Chess Changed

Slowly, the way I played chess and understood positions changed—for the better.

This is my personal belief: if you want to break stagnation, you must change something. It could be:

• the way you train
• your lifestyle habits
• how often you play
• or even your playing style

For me, joining Killer Chess Training and slowly moving from a video guy to a solving guy was the change that helped me evolve.

Why Did Solving Bring Results for Me?

Whenever you start something new, the growth potential is huge. The path to improvement is usually clear and simple at the beginning. But once you repeat the same method for years, your brain gets used to it, and progress slows down.

When I switched to solving hard positions, I was actually at a very early stage compared to other players of similar strength. Many of them were—and still are—much better solvers than me because they had been doing it since childhood.

For them, improvement is harder if they keep using the same method. For me, it was the opposite—I had a lot of room to grow.

Some Common Questions

Is Killer Chess Training for Everyone? Can You Succeed With It?

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the person. But I genuinely believe everyone should try it for at least one month.

Which Top Trainers’ Classes Have You Attended?

Some of the top trainers whose classes I attended include:

• Michael Adams
• Sam Shankland
• Boris Gelfand

Whose Classes Did You Like the Most?

For me, Sam Shankland stands out. He later moved away from traditional classes and started series like:

• Solve with Sam
• Technique with Sam

In these, he solves positions that are curated by Jacob. While these sessions are very good, I personally prefer his traditional classes.

Is This Sponsored?

Unfortunately, no. This is not sponsored. I’ve said this many times, and I’ll say it again:
Killer Chess Training and Jacob Aagaard played a huge role in my improvement, especially in my climb from the 2480s to 2600.

Conclusion

Looking back, my stagnation wasn’t because I lacked talent or worked less. It happened because I was doing the same things, in the same way, for too long.

The biggest lesson I learned is simple and uncomfortable:
Nothing changes unless you change something.

For me, that change meant doing things I didn’t enjoy—solving positions I wanted to avoid, accepting how bad I was at them, and trusting the process anyway. The rating gain came later. The real change happened much earlier, in how I trained and how I thought about chess.

If you are stuck—at 1800, 2400, or 2500—don’t wait for it to magically pass.
Change something. Anything.
Your training, your schedule, your habits, or the way you approach the game.

It may feel small at first. It may feel uncomfortable.
But over time, that change is what moves everything else.

What Helped Me Get My Final GM Norm

Test Your Understanding in the Sozin (Bc4 Sicilian)

Recently, I played what I can only describe as a horrible game—full of inaccuracies, poor decisions, and missed chances. Thankfully, I didn’t lose. But more importantly, I learned a lot from it. And that’s what I’d like to share with you.

This article is my attempt to turn that experience into something useful.

It’s not easy to present chess content in a text-based format—especially when trying to highlight practical thought processes and decision-making. But I’ll do my best to make it clear and engaging. If you’re a player looking to improve—or a coach looking for training material—feel free to use this however you like.

How This Will Work

I’ll present a series of positions from the game—key moments where my opponent and I had to make critical decisions. You can pause at each diagram and think through your move. My only suggestion: don’t skip ahead or assume that the next move shown is the “correct” one. It might not be.

Use this as a chance to test your thinking and compare it with what actually happened. You’ll probably do better than I did!

Let’s begin.

Black to Play-  ( Intuitive decision)

Black to Play

White to Play- ( How should white place his pieces and maybe organise an attack? Also think about black’s plan)

Black to Play 

White to play

Black to Play 

Final Position- White to Play

Conclusion

That brings us to the end of the test positions from this chaotic but valuable game. I hope you took the time to pause and think through each move—these were real decisions made under pressure, and they offer plenty of lessons.

Now, here’s the important part: don’t just check the answers—compare your thought process with mine. In the follow-up post, I’ll walk through what I was thinking during the game, what I actually played, and what should have been played instead. Some moves might surprise you—for better or worse.

👉 Click here for the full solutions and explanations

Whether you agreed with my choices or found stronger ones, I hope this exercise sharpens your decision-making and helps you reflect on your own games, too.

Thanks for reading—and learning alongside me.

Strategic ideas in the Sozin/Bc4 Sicilians

In my previous post, I shared a set of positions from a game that was far from my best—but full of practical lessons. If you haven’t seen that post yet, I recommend going through it first and testing yourself before reading on:
👉 Go to the test positions

This post is the follow-up—with full solutions, explanations, and a breakdown of what I was thinking in each position.

Some of the moves I played were fine. Others… not so much. But rather than hide the mistakes, I want to highlight them. The goal here is to show the kinds of decisions we all face in practical games, and what we can learn by looking at them honestly.

As you go through, I encourage you to compare your own thinking with mine. Where did we overlap? Where did you spot something I missed? That’s where the real insight happens.

Let’s dive in. The test positions will be in a random order to best explain the concepts

What should Black do here?

It’s important to identify Black’s best plan in this position. The correct approach is 1…Nxd4! 2. Bxd4 Nc5.

So what does this achieve? On the surface, not much right away—but it sets up long-term pressure. Black is now threatening to capture the powerful bishop on b3, which plays a key role in White’s setup.

But that’s only half the story. After Nc5, Black is also preparing b5 followed by b4!. Once that happens, White’s knight runs out of good squares, and Black gains significant counterplay on the queenside.

The good—or bad—news for White is that there’s no real way to prevent this plan.

Anyway, let’s rewind a bit to understand how we got here and why this plan is so effective.

The position arose from the 6. Bc4 Najdorf. It’s clear that White has gained a few extra tempi with moves like g4–g5, but even so, this position still requires some positional understanding to maintain the advantage.

I played 1. Qf3 after a very long think. While making the move, I knew it wasn’t ideal — but I was frustrated, as I simply couldn’t find a good move for White.

As we saw earlier, Black’s plan is straightforward:
1…Nxd4 2. Bxd4 Nc5, followed by b5 and b4, and I needed to find a way to prevent this.

Alternatively, Black can even start with 1…Nc5 against some of White’s slower moves.

During the game, I considered many options: 1. f4, 1. Rg1, 1. Qe2, 1. Qd2, to name a few.
I didn’t take 1. Nxc6 seriously at all, because I felt it would simply lead to a pawn structure more typical of the Classical Sicilian, which I wasn’t aiming for in this game.

So, let me first walk through the ideas behind the non-Nxc6 plans for White.

• 1. Rg1 was probably the easiest move to eliminate. After 1…Nc5, it felt like a complete tempo loss in this particular position.
• 1. f4, with the idea of playing f5, seemed too slow with the king still on e1. I was thinking of lines like 1…Nc5 2. 0-0, and also considered 2. Qd2, but in both cases, 2…Nxd4 followed by e5 made it feel like Black was completely fine.
• 1. Qe2 actually felt like the most natural move to me. In Sozin-type Sicilians (with Bc4), it’s often the ideal square for the queen.
  However, I didn’t like 1…Nc5 — and if White continues with 2. 0-0-0, then Nxd4! 3. Bxd4 b5, and I really didn’t like the resulting position.

Black is going to play b4, and in fact, the queen on e2 turns out to be misplaced!

Note: It’s actually better for Black to start with 1…Nxd4, in order to avoid 2. Nxc6 — but as we’ll see, I didn’t consider that at all during the game.

Now let’s come to 1. Qd2, which I believe is the best among all the non-Nxc6 options. So, let’s try to understand why.

After 1…Nxd4, I think this is the most problematic move for White. In this position, White has an extra idea: 1. Qxd4.

I also considered 1. Bxd4 Nc5, but even then I couldn’t quite figure out how White is supposed to stop b5 and b4.

In fact, there’s no real way for White to stop it, and Black is completely fine.

So, what’s the difference with 2. Qd4?

Let’s take a look: 2. Qd4 Nc5 3. 0-0-0 b5 — and now White plays 4. h5!, which seems logical.
But after 4…b4, the question is: How should White continue?

This variation works for White only because of the resource 1. h6! e5 2. Nd5!!
If exd4, then 3. Ne7+ Kh8 4. hxg7+ Kxg7 5. Bd4, and Black is getting mated soon.

I completely missed this Nd5 idea. It’s not that I couldn’t visualize the tactic—I’ve seen similar themes in puzzles before—but the key was recognizing it a couple of moves earlier, not once it was already on the board. Constructing that sequence from the starting position was the hard part.

Now, coming back to other strong options:
1. Nxc6 is a good move as well! After 1…bxc6, a simple follow-up like 2. Qd2 is enough. White will castle and then look to play on the kingside with ideas like h5–g6, or f4–f5, depending on how the position develops.

The problem for Black in this position is that it’s very difficult to create counterplay. For example:

2…c5 can be played, but it’s fairly easy for White to deal with. If needed, White can go with Qe2 and simply stop c4.

2…d5 is similar — White will likely just ignore it with 0-0-0. If chess rules allowed it, Black would love to play c5 and c4 in one go here — but that’s not possible. So, will White just continue with their own plan? Most likely, yes.

So, is this Nxc6 → bxc6 strategy only applicable in this specific line? Not at all.

There’s a very strong sideline in the Classical Sicilian that follows a similar strategic idea. It goes:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6
And now: 8. Nxc6!? bxc6 9. 0-0-0 Be7 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Bc4! followed by Bb3

This isn’t exactly the same idea, but there are clear similarities. In this case too, one of the main reasons the position can be good for White is that Black struggles to generate real queenside counterplay.

This variation caught my eye after seeing some correspondence wins by a player named Kruse H.
Normally, I don’t remember names, but this guy had a 2700 rating in correspondence chess — and that too, fairly recently. It could be a glitch in ChessBase or an online database, but either way, he seemed like a very strong correspondence player.

But let’s come back to the game.

According to the engine, White can enter these Nxc6 structures after 1. f4 or a few other moves as well — but alright.

After all that thinking, I was a bit frustrated and decided to just play a logical move without worrying too much about maintaining an advantage. That’s why I played 1. Qf3.

As we’ve seen, the best response is 1…Nxd4! 2. Bxd4, and then Nc5. But my opponent played 1…Nc5 directly.

What should White play here?
I’m sure you guessed it right: 1. Nxc6! bxc6 2. Bxc5 Qxc5 3. 0-0-0

This is similar to structures from the Classical Sicilian, but without the doubled pawns.

Please note: you’re not playing purely for an all-out attack here. It’s a more positional approach — White will try to create weaknesses in the center with f4–f5, or find other strategic ideas depending on how Black responds.

In my game, I played 2. 0-0-0, and after Nc5, once again the question is:

What should Black play here?

Nxd4 and b5 again!
Chess is simple—but hard.

There were some inaccuracies in the next few moves as well, but I’ll skip over those and move straight to the next test position. Here’s how the game continued:

3…Bd7 4. Kb1 Rac8 5. Rhg1 b5

White should play 6. Nxc6 here as well! But this time, the idea is a bit different.

If Black recaptures with 6…Rxc6, White has several strong options. One interesting idea is 7. e5!? — and if Black responds with d5, then 8. Bxd5 gives White a huge advantage.

Here we come to another common theme in the Sozin.
What should White play?

g6!

Let’s look at a few possible responses:

• 1…hxg6 2. h5 — and White is threatening mate.
• 1…Nxb3 2. gxh7 Kh8 3. Rg7 — you can calculate the rest from here.
• 1…fxg6 2. Qh3 (or Qg4) — the e6 pawn is hanging, and h5 will soon follow!

Finally, let’s go back to the…starting positions to see if you have learned enough from this article

What’s Black’s best move in this position? There are two reasonable options, but let’s see if you can find the one I’m looking for.

The best move is 1…Nfd7!
What’s the idea behind it? We return to the same strategic plan: we want to reposition the knight to c5 as quickly as possible to directly challenge White’s bishop on b3, which has the potential to become a serious long-term threat.

The engine also suggests 1…d5, which leads to a slightly worse position—but let’s set that aside for now.

Yes, 1…Nfd7 does allow Bxe6, but Black is holding up just fine in those lines.

In my game, my opponent played 1…Nc6 2. g5 Nfd7.

Let’s move on to the next—and final—test position.

We all know that Black played Qa5 here—but the best move once again is Nc5!

My opponent was probably concerned about the line 1…Nc5 2. Nxc6 bxc6 3. Bxc5, leading to an endgame. It’s true that White holds a slight edge there, but Black has solid defensive resources. It shouldn’t be considered overly dangerous.

This led me to a million-dollar question:
Can this knight maneuver to c5 be used in all Sicilians when the bishop is on b3?

As it turns out, this idea has been around for ages. It’s just that many of us blindly follow theory without fully understanding the underlying plans.

Let’s take the first example:

e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3

This is the old main line of the Sozin Variation.

There are two main lines here—but what would you play?

Yes! 7…Nbd7 followed by Nc5 is one of the mainlines. It’s been played by Kasparov and many other top players.

As a sidenote, I highly recommend studying Topalov vs Kasparov in this Nbd7 line. It’s a true masterpiece by Topalov and shows how deeply this variation can be understood and played.

Now, let’s look at another example:

e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 Nbd7 7. Bc4

I’ve had two painful losses from this position. The best move here is 7…Qb6. But have you ever wondered why?

Usually in the Sicilian, Qb6 is played to provoke Nb3, and then the queen retreats to c7. But in this case, we’re forcing Bb3—a move White is likely to play anyway. So it’s not about provoking a weakness, but about improving move order and gaining time.

The reasoning here is a bit subtle, but at the end of the day, Black’s main goal is to get the knight to c5. Another important point is to prevent White from playing Qe2, which supports a dangerous attacking setup.

Let’s break these ideas down more clearly. To do that, we need to understand what happens if Black plays e6, followed by typical moves like Be7, Qc7, and Nc5.

if Black plays 7…e6, White responds with 8. Qe2! — a strong move (note that 7…Qb6 would prevent this). Now, White’s idea is to castle queenside with 0-0-0 and strike in the center with f4–e5, or consider ideas like Nd5 depending on how Black proceeds.

The move 8…Be7 would be met by 9. Bxe6, so it’s essentially off the table.

After 8…Nc5, then 9. 0-0-0 follows, and the position already looks very dangerous for Black due to looming e5 threats.

If Black instead plays 8…Qc7, White continues with 9. 0-0-0, and again, Black has to constantly watch out for tactical shots like Bxe6 and related ideas.

So, while 7…e6 isn’t necessarily bad—it might be slightly dubious—it’s not outright losing. Black could consider continuing with 8…b5 or 8…h6, but both options carry significant risk.

That’s why the move 7…Qb6 followed by 8. Bb3 e6 is more solid. It eliminates the Qe2 idea and the 0-0-0 setup for White. It also neutralizes the Bxe6 resource. From there, Black can continue with Be7 and Nc5, returning to a more comfortable and familiar setup.

Let me summarize,

1. Putting a knight on c5 is usually an excellent idea in Bc4 Sicilians, especially the Sozin Variation.
2. However, be careful not to give up the initiative while trying to achieve this plan. Timing matters.
3. The move Nxc6! (especially when it forces bxc6) is often a strong strategic idea for White.
4. It can leave Black with structural weaknesses and long-term targets.
5. If you’re playing White, consider adding Nxc6 to your Sicilian toolkit.
6. If you’re playing Black, be cautious about allowing Nxc6, especially if your position is uncoordinated.
7. These strategic ideas appear in many Sicilian lines — not just the Sozin.
8. But always calculate and evaluate each position carefully — there are many exceptions, and no idea works automatically.

I hope you found this breakdown helpful and that it gave you some useful insights into key Sicilian structures and ideas. If it helped clarify anything or sparked new thoughts in your own games, that’s already a win.

If you enjoyed the post or learned something from it, I’d really appreciate your support—whether it’s sharing it, leaving feedback, or simply following along for more. Thanks for reading, and good luck in your own battles over the board!

Read more of my articles here:-

• The Psychology of Draw Offers in Chess
• Here’s How I Went From Being Stuck at 2470–2500 to 2600
• What Helped Me Get My Final GM Norm
• Test Your Understanding in the Sozin (Bc4 Sicilian)
• Strategic ideas in the Sozin/Bc4 Sicilians

 

How to Minimize Distractions While Working

Once upon a time at the Sabarmati Ashram, a mother brought her son to meet Mahatma Gandhi. There were hundreds of people in line, all waiting for a chance to see Gandhiji.

When their turn finally came, the mother asked Gandhiji if he could advise her son to stop eating sugar, as he was addicted to it.

Gandhiji listened quietly and then said, “Please come back to see me in two weeks.”
Though puzzled, the mother agreed and left.

Two weeks later, the mother and son returned to the ashram and waited in line once again. When they finally met Gandhiji, he turned to the boy and simply said, “Don’t eat sugar. It’s very harmful.”

The mother was surprised and couldn’t hold back her question: “Bapu, why didn’t you say this two weeks ago? We had to come all this way again.”

Gandhiji smiled gently and replied, “Two weeks ago, I myself was eating sugar. How could I advise your son to do something that I wasn’t practicing myself? So I first gave it up before asking him to do the same.”

Moral of the story: People often give advice they themselves don’t follow.

And yet, here I am about to do the very same — offering a bunch of suggestions I might not follow myself!

If you want to improve, you need to do the work. The kind of work may differ from person to person, but working itself is non‑negotiable.

The real roadblock, however, comes from distractions. With thousands of distractions around us, it’s becoming harder than ever to focus. Some people seem naturally blessed in this regard, but not everyone is.

Over the years, I’ve come across many tools and techniques to fight distractions — though I must admit, I’ve rarely applied them consistently. Here, I’ll share what I’ve learned, and finally, what actually worked for me.

Step one: Understand why and how you get distracted

Why do we get distracted?

• Limited attention span: Our brains can only focus on one thing for so long before drifting.
• The work isn’t enjoyable: We rarely get distracted when we’re doing something we love. Watching a great movie, for instance, makes us forget how time flies.
• The work feels too hard: Personally, if I’m stuck on a tough chess position and can’t see a solution, my mind tends to wander. Interestingly, this doesn’t happen during actual games — only during training. (Proof: after writing the previous sentence, I caught myself watching a reel on my phone!)
• Routine and boredom: Repeating the same tasks every day can get dull, and boredom naturally invites distraction.

How do we get distracted?

• Our mind drifts to something else.
• We pick up the phone and start scrolling.
• (There can be many more ways — it’s useful to identify your own patterns.)

Understanding both why and how you get distracted is crucial. Once you see the pattern, it becomes easier to break it.

Some advice (found online, in books, or from people I respect)

I’ll be honest: I’ve rarely stuck to these for long — but they might work better for you.

1. Keep your phone away
A friend of mine, who knows is friends with a top player, once told me to switch the phone off completely while working. The logic is simple: our phones are often the single biggest source of distraction. Removing them removes the temptation. Placing the phone in a completely different room is even better

2. Pomodoro Technique
Set a timer for 25 minutes. Focus solely on work during that time. Afterward, take a short 5‑minute break. Repeat. You can adjust the time blocks to suit yourself.

One story that really stayed with me is about GM Krishnan Sasikiran — one of India’s strongest players, former India No. 2, and a grandmaster who has defeated several of the world’s best.

This was shared with me by GM Swapnil, who once roomed with Sasikiran during a tournament or training camp. Swapnil noticed something remarkable about how Sasikiran worked:

 Sasikiran followed a strict routine of working in two-hour deep work blocks. During those two hours, he would be completely absorbed in chess. After finishing a block, he would then take a proper break to relax and recharge.

This method is very similar in spirit to the Pomodoro technique but on a larger scale: instead of 25-minute sprints, it’s about immersing yourself deeply for two hours, then stepping back. It shows that productivity isn’t only about pushing harder or working longer; it’s about working deeply and deliberately, and then truly resting in between.

4. Time blocking
Create a schedule: for example, 10 am–12 pm for calculation practice, 12 pm–1 pm for openings, and so on. During each block, do only that task. You can mix this with Pomodoro to handle attention span issues.

5. Do the hardest task first
Life is unpredictable: sudden errands, unexpected visitors, family obligations. By tackling the most important and demanding task first thing in the morning, you ensure that even if your day doesn’t go as planned, the key work still gets done.

What actually helped me

Going to an academy/Working with a coach
Whenever I’m at a chess academy, I rarely get distracted. Even when solving tough positions, I force myself to complete them. The answers may or may not come, but I put in real effort — which matters most. Unfortunately, where I live there isn’t an academy I can attend. In that sense, I feel people in cities like Chennai are lucky.

Working with a friend or colleague
Whether online or over the board, working with someone keeps me focused.
Things to watch out for:

• If you’re too close, you might end up chatting instead of working.
• Your tasks might not benefit both equally.
• When solving together, the first person to find the answer could spoil the process for the other.

The unconventional path: Multitasking

Yes, I know this goes against all common advice — but it worked for me for quite a while.

For example, I’d do opening prep while watching a movie or web series on the side.

Why it helped:

• It made difficult work feel lighter and more enjoyable.
• It countered my short attention span: if my mind wandered, it wandered to the movie, then naturally came back to work.
• Overall, I got more work done this way when working alone at home.
•  

Things to keep in mind:

• The quality of your work might drop.
• Solving very complex positions isn’t ideal while multitasking.
• You need to ignore the guilt that multitasking is “bad.”
  The goal, after all, is simple: get the work done.

Disclaimer: I’m not sure this will work for everyone. It worked for me, but try it cautiously.

---

In the end, fighting distraction is a deeply personal journey. What works brilliantly for one person might fall flat for another and sometimes, even what once worked for us stops working later. I’ve shared the tools, stories, and experiments that helped me at different times, though I haven’t always followed them perfectly myself. The important thing, I’ve realised, isn’t to aim for flawless focus every day, but to keep observing, keep adjusting, and keep trying. After all, progress in chess or in life — often comes not from never being distracted, but from learning how to return to the work again and again.

Suggested book reads for getting rid of distractions and getting the work done

1.”Deep Work” by Cal Newport 

2. “Hyperfocus: How to Be More Productive in a World of Distraction” by Chris Bailey

3. “Indistractable: How to Control Your Attention and Choose Your Life” by Nir Eyal

4. “Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less” by Greg McKeown

Suggested videos for getting rid of distractions 

Secret of Concentration Lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda

Focus better by Swami Sarvapriyananda

 

Does Detachment Really Lead to Better Results?

I want to succeed.

So do most chess players I know. But “success” can mean different things:

• Winning games
  
• Winning tournaments
  
• Gaining rating
  
• Playing beautiful chess
  

From what I’ve seen, most professionals are focused on the first and third: winning games and gaining rating. And between the two, gaining rating wins — almost every time.

So what do we do?

We chase it.
We stress over it.
We tie our identity to it.

But almost every wise player, coach, or book says the same thing:

Detach from the result. Focus on the process.

From the Bhagavad Gita:

“Karmanye vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,
Ma Karmaphalaheturbhurma Te Sangostvakarmani“
(Bhagavad Gita, 2.47)

Translation:

“You have the right to perform your actions, but not to the fruits of those actions. Never be attached to the results, and never let yourself be inactive.”

But does this actually work?

---

My First National Championship Win

It started in an airport lounge in Saudi Arabia — Riyadh, I think. I had a long layover on my way back to India from Europe. I’d just wrapped up a string of tournaments — around eight — and my performance was average. I was still stuck at 2480, a rating I’d hovered around for four years.

Bored and tired, I stumbled across a ChessBase India interview: Arjun and Gukesh, tied for first at the National Seniors. That video sparked something in me. A quiet fire lit up.

“I want to win the Nationals. I want to be a National Champion.”

That became my singular goal — also because it would qualify me for the World Cup.

But the start was rocky. Two tough wins, followed by a couple of draws. I wasn’t anywhere near the top.

By Round 7, I started letting go. Not of ambition, but of the need to control the outcome.
I still wanted to win — but I stopped obsessing over it.

Meanwhile, others led the tournament — GM Sethuraman, GM Abhijeet Gupta, GM Koustav Chatterjee.

Then things shifted.

I beat Abhijeet in Round 9, in a crazy game where I got lucky. Then I won against Koustav in Round 10.

There was drama in the final round. But somehow, with a little luck, I won the tournament.

Looking back — the moment I let go, things began to align.

Was it luck? Yes.
Was it detachment? Maybe.
Either way, I won.

---

My Second National Win

This time, I was seeded fourth or fifth. On paper, one of the favorites. But it didn’t feel that way. I’d had a terrible year, losing rating in almost every tournament. My confidence was low. And the usual fear of playing in India crept in.

“Playing in India is self-burial,” some say.

So I entered with low expectations. And honestly, that helped.

I started well. Two draws against strong players in the middle rounds — but GM Surya Sekhar Ganguly was on fire. I think he won seven straight games.

At that point, I accepted he might win.
Still, I wanted to stay in the race.

I won Round 10 and closed the gap between us to half a point. I hoped to be paired against him in the last round. If I beat him, I’d likely win the title. Plus, I’d get White, which I wanted.

But instead, I got Mitrabha, with Black.

Frustrating.

He’s strong, solid, and difficult to beat — not the opponent you want when chasing a title.

Before the game, my mindset was simple:

• I didn’t check tiebreaks. It felt unnecessary.
  
• I decided to play for a win — but not force it.
  
• If I’m meant to win, I’ll win. If not, I’ll accept it.
  

Somehow, I won. The tiebreaks favored me.

National Champion — again.

---

So… Does Detachment Work?

Sometimes.

It helped me in both tournaments. Not total detachment from long-term goals, but from short-term obsession. A kind of surrender:
“I’ll play my best, and let’s see what happens.”

But let’s not romanticize it too much.

---

The Real Test Comes When You’re Losing

When you’re winning, any mindset works.
You could eat junk, skip prep, meditate — everything clicks.

But when you’re failing? That’s when your framework is truly tested.

Back to my first Nationals — I got lucky against Abhijeet. The position was wild. I created chances, sure — but honestly, I should’ve lost.

If I had?

Game over. No win. No title.
And likely, I would’ve questioned the detachment itself.

That’s the point.

Frameworks are fragile in the face of failure.

---

Summary of My Observations on Detachment

• When you’re too focused on results, things almost never go your way. It’s that simple.
• Complete detachment isn’t realistic, at least not for me. But a light touch — just enough space from the outcome — works.
• The mindset that helped was:
  “I’ll just play my game. If things go well — and I deserve it — I’ll win.”
  
• It’s crucial to train your mind to handle failure. Because when you’re failing, even gold starts to look like bronze.
• If you’re not prepared, failure will shake your entire belief system. You start doubting your methods, your mindset — even yourself.
• And then, without realizing it, you fall back into the same loop of attachment, chasing results, needing validation, breaking down when it doesn’t come.

---

Final Thought

Detachment doesn’t mean you stop caring — it means you don’t let the outcome control you.

Play freely. Fail without breaking. Care deeply, but don’t cling.

That balance is hard.
But in that space — between effort and outcome — real growth begins.

Useful Links

Rethinking Failure

Understanding tilt

Jocko Willink

 

My Time Management Lesson from Sharjah Masters

As you might know, I wrote an article on how to deal with time pressure in chess. What I didn’t cover in that article came back to haunt me in the recently concluded Sharjah Masters 2025.

The problem I’m referring to is playing impulsively — moving too fast at critical moments. There’s a difference between playing fast and playing too fast. Playing fast is fine as long as you’re emotionally in control and consciously processing the position. This particular problem affects not only players who play too fast, but also those who frequently find themselves in time trouble. At some point in the game, we all tend to make moves a bit too quickly.

Even a non-chess player can understand the drawback of moving too quickly: you’re more likely to make a mistake because you haven’t fully evaluated the position.

What I want to talk about in this article is a common habit among chess players — responding instantly as soon as the opponent makes a move. There are different reasons we fall into this pattern:

• To show confidence or assert dominance
• To gain time on the clock
• To reach the next time control faster
• Believing it’s an obvious or automatic move

In this article, I’ll share some impulsive mistakes I made during a recent game, along with the thought process behind each move.

The game was played as black against Grandmaster Visakh NR, who was rated 2507 before the game. I’ll also highlight a couple of critical moments leading up to these impulsive decisions.

Let’s directly jump in after white’s 12th move. I missed my opponent’s 12.Ra1! move. Now 12….Bb2 is not great because of 13. Rb1 Bxc3 14. Rc1 and the c7 pawn falls. For some reason, I assumed Rb1 was forced, and I was planning to play Bf5 with a gain of tempo. This was the first critical position. Where do you think Black’s light-squared bishop belongs? White is also preparing to play Qb3 next—so what would you do about it?

I played 12…Bf5, probably the most logical move in the position. Then came 13.Qb3 Bd6 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Nd2, and it finally became clear to me that White was pushing for an advantage. I realized I had made a slight inaccuracy. White is preparing to play e4 next, which seems to give him a symbolic edge. Moves like Ne4, Nc5, and so on are coming.

Let’s go back to the position after 12.Ra1. Here’s what I learned after analysing with the computer

1. It’s better for black not to exchange the dark squared bishops. The reason being that once the dark squared bishops are exchanged, it’s easier for white to penetrate with e4 dxe4 Nxe4 and then Nc5. If black keeps the dark squared bishop then Nc5 is not a threat. Also d6 square will be controlled.
2. Bishop on f5 is not very well placed if white is preparing to play e4. When playing 12…Bf5 I assumed that I should be able to stop e4 somehow but I don’t think it’s really possible. Then what’s the ideal square for light squared bishop? Suprisingly, it’s e6! The point is to prepare e4 break with dxe4 and then put the bishop on d5 to counter the g2 bishop! Once the center opens up with the bishop f5, the g2 bishop will become a pain.

Something like this would be a dream for Black! The bishop on d5 suppresses the g2 bishop, and it’s also worth noting that the dark-squared bishop keeps an eye on both the d6 and c5 squares.

Anyway, let’s move on. In the game, the following moves occurred: 12…Bf5 13.Qb3 Bd6 14.Bd6 Qd6 15.Nd2 Rfe8 16.Rfe1.

After a long think here, I realized that the bishop belonged on e6. So I played 16…Be6!? 17.e4!? dxe4 18.Ne4 Qd8 19.Qb5.

This was a semi-critical point. White had a very small positional initiative — he was planning to play Nc5, possibly a4 in some lines, and so on.

I wanted to play 19…Bd5 here and calculated this line a bit: 20.Nc5 Bg2 21.Kg2 Qd5 22.Kg1 Re1 23.Re1. I thought this should be within drawing range, but it still looked like something for White. A part of me didn’t want to liquidate the position and have to suffer for a draw — and another part of me did. These kinds of situations are psychologically tricky, especially when you’re not exactly sure what you’re fighting for.

Then I noticed I could play 19…c6!? If 20.Qg5, then I thought Qxg5 21.Qxg5 Bd5 was accurate, and I’d be completely fine. I briefly looked at 20.Qc5 and my thought process was: I can even go 20…Bd5 21.Nd6 Re1 22.Re1 Qd7, and I felt this should be okay since I’m going to exchange the light-squared bishops and simplify.

My opponent thought for a bit and played 20.Qc5 — and without much thought, I played out the whole line I had just described, like an idiot.

What did I miss here?

23.c4! — a simple move, after which I’m close to being busted. Honestly, I think it’s an easy move to spot. So why did I miss it? Because I didn’t think at all. I just played all my moves quickly after Qc5.

I even managed to make the position worse over the next few moves, and the following position arose.

This is the position after 30.g5. White is clearly winning here, but I started to play well again. What is Black’s best try in this position?

30…Re8! — the idea being that if 31.Rxe8, then 31…Nf4, and 32.Kf3 is not possible due to 32…Qh3!.

White is still winning here — see if you can find how.

My opponent played 31.Rh4, which initially looked like the most critical try to me.

How should Black defend here? The next two moves I played — without any false modesty — were worthy of the best player in the world.

The correct move here is 31…f6! — the only move. The idea is that if 32.cxd5 fxg5! (32…Qd5 33.Kg3 followed by Ng4 wins for White), then 33.Rh3 Qd5. If 34.Qf3 Qxf3 35.Kxf3 Rh8, Black wins back the material. Even 34.f3 Re2 also seems quite okay for Black.

My opponent responded with 32.Qg3, which again is the most critical move in the position.

What would you play here as Black? Can you find the only move?

I played 32…b5!! — forcing White to make a decision about the c4 pawn. Here, I calculated a variation accurately to make it work: 33.cxd5 Qd5 34.Kh3. I considered this to be the critical line. Then 34…fxg5 35.Qc7+ Kf8 (it’s not mate, luckily), 36.Rg4 Re7!! — and I was proud of myself for seeing this.

The key point is that after 37.Qg3, there’s Rh7, and if 37.Qb8, then Kg7 — and Black is doing fine.

This was the main variation I was calculating while my opponent was thinking. I also briefly considered 33.gxf6 Nxf6 34.Ng4. I didn’t calculate it deeply, but I felt I could play 34…Ne4. If 35.Qh3, then Ng5!? stops Rh7. If 35.Qf4, then g5 — I thought — and I couldn’t believe it was actually working.

I was excited and went back to analyzing the other critical variation while my opponent was still thinking.

What happened next? My opponent played 33.gxf6 Nxf6 34.Ng4.

What do you think Black should play here? And what do you think I actually played?

Without a second thought, I played 34…Ne4. It loses rather easily after 35.Qe3. If g5 now, then 36.Ne5 follows. Funnily enough, 34…Ne4 35.Qh3 Ng5 is also a blunder because of Qc3 — and it loses too.

I still can’t understand how I could play moves like f6 and b5 in the previous two moves, and then suddenly play something like Ne4?! The equality was straightforward.

34…Nxg4 35.Rg4 Re6 is solid. The computer also likes 34…Qd4 35.Qc7 Nd4, though I’m not sure how practical that is over the board.

The main takeaway — for me and for you, if you’ve made it this far — is that playing too fast can be just as damaging as playing too slowly.

The reason I played 34…Ne4 so quickly was partly excitement and partly a desire to put pressure on my opponent, as we were nearing potential time trouble.

What frustrates me the most is this: even if I had spent just 10 seconds thinking about what White could do, I would have realized that my move was nonsense.

Here’s what I would do next time:

• I’ll avoid making impulsive moves or playing at blitz speed whenever it’s not necessary.
• If I still find myself tempted, I’ll force myself to spend an extra 30 seconds to a minute to check for flaws in my line.
• I’ll also take the time to consciously identify candidate moves, rather than locking in on one too quickly

Unfortunately, this was not the first time I have committed this mistake. Good or bad, I have a feeling I might end up repeating the same mistake. But recognizing it is the first step toward improvement. Chess is a constant learning process, and even our worst errors can teach us valuable lessons if we’re willing to reflect and adapt.

I hope sharing my experience helps you avoid similar pitfalls in your own games. Remember, patience and mindful thinking often make all the difference.

Useful links

The Game

How to deal with time pressure

Final Thoughts

Please excuse any inconsistencies in the chessboard sizes or formatting—I’m still learning the ins and outs of website design! My main focus is sharing my journey in chess improvement and the lessons I’ve learned along the way.

I’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback on this article. Whether it’s about the content, the analysis, or even the presentation, your input will help me grow as a player and a writer. Feel free to reach out to me directly at karthik@chess-cult.com

Thank you for reading, and here’s to improving together!

Jocko Willink’s 5 Wake-Up Calls for a Better Day

Jocko Willink is more than a Navy SEAL — he’s pure discipline. These 5 wake-up calls will snap you out of excuses and into action.

---

1. Binary Code: The End of Overthinking

Overthinking drains your time. It drains your energy. So stop debating and start deciding.

Reduce every decision to a simple binary: Yes or No.

Are you going to wake up early? Yes or No.
Are you going to study that endgame? Yes or No.
Are you going to fix your mindset? Yes or No.

That’s it. Don’t spiral. Don’t delay. Ask. Answer. Act.

You don’t need more motivation.
You need clarity.

That’s what Binary Code gives you.

---

2. GOOD: Turning Setbacks into Strength

What does Jocko say when things fall apart? Good.

Not because it feels good — but because every obstacle is an opportunity if you choose to see it that way.

Blundered a winning position under time pressure? Good. Now you know it’s time to improve your time management.
Played a terrible tournament? Good. That’s fuel for the next one.

Good is not fake positivity. It’s a disciplined mental shift.

You don’t dwell on what went wrong. You reframe. You redirect. You rebuild.

Every loss contains a lesson — if you meet it with the right mindset.

---

3. Not Feeling It

Michael Phelps trained every single day for six years before the Olympics.

No days off.
Birthdays. Holidays. Sick days. He showed up anyway.

Do you think he felt like training every day?

Of course not. But feelings didn’t matter. The mission did.

Don’t feel like doing calculation? Do it anyway.
Don’t like memorizing openings? Memorize them.
Not in the mood to prep? Prep harder.

Discipline doesn’t ask how you feel.

You don’t rise to the level of your feelings. You rise to the level of your discipline.

---

4. Questions

We all start with limited knowledge.

But growth comes from one habit: ask questions relentlessly.

When you don’t understand a position — don’t skip it. Study it. Break it down.

Why is this position better for White?
Is it because of the dynamic piece activity or a structural imbalance?

Don’t just accept the engine’s evaluation — question it.
Try to understand why it prefers one side. What principles are at play? What long-term plans does it see?

This isn’t just chess advice — it’s a life rule.

Have no shame in not knowing. The only shame is in staying that way.

---

5. The Count Is Zero

In Navy SEAL training, there’s a brutal drill: Log PT.

Recruits do push-ups, squats, lunges — all while holding a massive log overhead.
Say the goal is 100 pushups. One guy collapses at 56?

Count is zero. Start over.

That same principle applies to chess. And life.

You can play 35 perfect moves…
But if move 36 is a blunder?

It’s over.

Count zero is harsh.
But it builds something rare: accountability.

Either you meet the standard — or you start again.

---

Want More?

If these ideas hit home, dig into Jocko Willink’s book: Discipline Equals Freedom.

It’s not a typical self-help book.
It’s a battle manual — for the war between you and your excuses.

Short chapters. No fluff. All mindset, grit, and action.

Highly recommended if you’re ready to level up your habits, discipline, and response to discomfort.

Useful Links

Want to read more?

• The Psychology of Draw Offers in Chess
• Here’s How I Went From Being Stuck at 2470–2500 to 2600
• What Helped Me Get My Final GM Norm
• Test Your Understanding in the Sozin (Bc4 Sicilian)
• Strategic ideas in the Sozin/Bc4 Sicilians

 

Unlocking Growth: How to Get Better at Chess

Everyone wants to improve at something. This desire has no ceiling. It’s true that, at times, the urge to boost our rating or win tournaments overshadows the pure intention to improve — but deep down, no one can honestly say they don’t want to get better.

So, if the goal is clear — to improve — why doesn’t everyone do it?

The answer is a little more complicated. While qualities like discipline, consistency, persistence, and hard work are all important, we often lack clarity on how to improve. If we understood the process better, we could try to replicate it — but most of us don’t.

Two Key Problems Block Progress:

1. We don’t know what exactly to do in order to improve.
2. We know what to do, but don’t do it — usually because it’s hard.

This article will focus on the first problem: understanding what improvement looks like and how to pursue it effectively.

You might be wondering, “If you know all this, why aren’t you a World Champion already?”
Fair question. My problem lies more with the second issue — doing what’s required. But that’s for another day.

---

Three Areas That Affect Improvement

Let’s divide improvement into three broad areas:

1. Technical/Chess Skills

This may not be the most important factor, but without technical skill, the rest doesn’t matter. You can have the best mindset, but if your moves are weak, you won’t get far.

2. Mental Strength

Many players I know have solid skills but underperform due to mental blocks — pressure, confidence issues, tilt, etc.

3. External Factors

Your commitments, lifestyle, family environment — all of these affect how well you can focus and train. Favorable conditions can enhance performance, while unfavorable ones can hold you back.

For now, I’ll focus solely on the technical aspect.

---

Breaking the Myth: Repetition Alone Doesn’t Lead to Mastery

A common belief is that doing the same activity repeatedly over a long period will make you an expert. But that’s not always true. The key lies in the details of how you practice.

Example 1: Sam the Commuter

Imagine Sam, who drives to work every day and has done so for 20 years. Given this, would you expect him to compete in an F1 race?

Probably not. He’s been driving, yes — but he’s never trained in the way a racer does. His driving wasn’t designed to improve speed, control under pressure, or advanced maneuvers. It was routine.

Lesson: Simply repeating an activity — without challenge or intent — does not guarantee improvement.

Example 2: The Chess Beginner

Let’s say you just started chess and want to reach a 1600 rating. Your coach gives you mate-in-one puzzles, and over time, you become lightning fast — solving them in 5 seconds. You do this for 6 months.

Will that alone take you to 1600?

Definitely not. At first, those puzzles were appropriate. But once they became too easy, continuing with them was no longer useful. What you needed was a transition to harder material — mate-in-two, mate-in-three, and tactical patterns.

Lesson: Improvement requires constantly adjusting the level of difficulty to push your current limits.

---

The Power of Deliberate Practice

I first encountered the concept of Deliberate Practice in the book Peak by Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool . The authors studied world-class performers and asked: Were they naturally gifted, or was it their training that set them apart?

Their conclusion: Talent matters far less than people think. What really makes a difference is how someone practices.

What Is Deliberate Practice?

When you start any skill, your progress is fast at first. But soon you hit a plateau. At that point, continuing with the same routine stops producing results. Deliberate practice is a way to break through that plateau.

It involves:

• Working with specific goals in mind
• Isolating weaknesses
• Receiving feedback
• Pushing slightly beyond your comfort zone

Almost every elite performer began with passion. But at some point, they had to work in a structured and focused way to get better.

---

What About the 10,000-Hour Rule?

Malcolm Gladwell popularized the idea in Outliers that it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill. While catchy, this number is a generalization.

Peak clarifies that how you spend those hours is far more important than the number itself. If you spend 10,000 hours practicing the wrong way — without challenge, feedback, or adjustment — you won’t become an expert.

---

Applying This to Chess Training

Your training should reflect a few key principles:

• It should be challenging, pushing you just outside your comfort zone.
• It should be structured — targeting both your strengths and weaknesses.
• It shouldn’t be so hard that it becomes demotivating, nor so easy that it becomes automatic.

Working on Strengths and Weaknesses

Improvement can happen by working on either — or both — your strengths and weaknesses. What matters is that the process challenges you and pushes your capacity.

There are two major schools of thought on whether it’s better to double down on your strengths or fix your weaknesses — something I’ll explore in a future article. For now, just know that both approaches can work as long as your training is intentional and effortful.

How Can Training Be Challenging?

There are two main ways people introduce challenge into training:

1. Difficulty-Based Challenge

This is when the material itself becomes more complex.
Some examples:

• Selecting a tougher chess book
• Trying to solve puzzles blindfolded
• Analyzing grandmaster games without engine assistance

These are not strict recommendations — just examples to illustrate what increasing difficulty might look like.

2. Time-Based Challenge

This is where time pressure adds intensity.
Examples:

• Beating your high score in a 3-minute Puzzle Rush
• Solving as many exercises as you can from a book in a 1-hour window, then trying to improve on it later

Again, these are illustrations — not one-size-fits-all solutions.

Why Not Make Training Extremely Hard from the Start?

Imagine a 6th-grade student trying to learn from a 10th-grade physics textbook. It wouldn’t work — not because the book is bad, but because the foundation isn’t there yet.

The same thing happened to me. I once wanted to understand how the universe began, so I picked up Stephen Hawking’s The Theory of Everything. Just 10 pages in, I gave up — not due to a lack of interest, but because I had zero background knowledge. The concepts and terminology were completely unfamiliar.

Lesson: Learning must be progressive. If it’s too hard, you’ll burn out or lose motivation. The goal is to operate at the edge of your ability — not beyond it.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Challenge is essential — You need to constantly push your boundaries to make progress.
2. But not too much — If the training is overwhelming, it becomes counterproductive.
3. Structure matters — Your training should be intentional and designed to target both strengths and weaknesses.
4. Repetition isn’t enough — Mindless repetition leads to plateaus. Improvement requires deliberate, mindful practice.

---

Coming Up Next

I want to dive deeper into this in my next article — including more methods, tools, and principles to structure your chess improvement effectively.

If you’re interested in the books I mentioned, here are the links again (these are affiliate links — using them helps support this content at no extra cost to you):

• Peak by Anders Ericsson & Robert Pool
• Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
• The Theory of Everything by Stephen Hawking

Here are my other articles for you to read