The perfect defense (for any rating) · Road to GM, Game 357

There is one best defense in chess. It's the perfect opening. It's rich, simple to learn, leads to numerous different types of positions. It can be slow and positional or wild and tactical, depending on how you decide to play it. Best of all, it's extremely hard for white to play for an advantage without risking a lot.

Chess openings can be a disaster if you aren't familiar with typical tricks, traps and patterns to punish them. My opponent made mistake typical for the Panov Caro-Kann structure and was in trouble and down material out of the opening.

Poche D. (1726) - Tomic S. (1981)
Villard de Lans, Rd.2,
July 1st 2024
Caro-Kann, Panov

#chess

[prabhatkiranmukherje]

Well having watched it through to the end Poche's decision not to resign or give Stjepan's rating the respect was amply justified as he managed to cling on for the draw in the end, and Stjepan did make many mistakes. Ultimately unless your opponent would win the position against Magnus or Stockfish, there's no reason not to play on, so maybe we can all learn from Denis and fight on till the bitter end with full belief, even if the opponent is much stronger.

Looking forward to the coming games, as I'm sure from the end result, they must all have been quite interesting.

[thegametwok]

18:40 "So I'm always a tempo late with the good moves." STORY OF MY CHESS LIFE LOL

[lew]

While I'm a big fan, there are two silly things I have seen about Stjepan's thought process constantly:

1) The saying "expect him to resign" or "..and you resign.." is thrown around constantly while he himself can't convert many of those positions. Just because something is winning objectively doesn't mean it's always resignable for the side with disadvantage. If I have a lone king against a king and rook then that's certainly resignable at this level.

2) Another his idea that many of the opening side lines should not be played because they're "bad" by having a way to "refute" it. He then shows the line that refutes it, as if everyone would practically know it - he probably forgets it himself shortly. While it's true that knowing opening theory perfectly can give you there an advantageous position against the player playing the 'side line', it doesn't mean it's an auto-win. Quite often the opposite, stepping into an objectively bit dubious side line will knock the opponent out of his preparation and can actually help you to win a game. While this might not be effective against Magnus or Caruana in classical, it certainly is at this level.

[silversurfer]

Yes, chess is a hard game. BTW, your "road to GM" seems to be as unrealistic as mine, that I've been stuck at ~2100 FIDE for decades... however, your content is instructive and fun

[prabhatkiranmukherje]

"I was expecting my opponent to resign"

This one somehow seemed hilarious, four minutes into the video. Stjepan you need to resign less! It's not that your opponents should be resigning more.

Again it's a little funny seeing you super-impose your thought process onto your opponent in the funniest places. Sure, I get it that you're rated higher; surely you don't expect your opponent to automatically think you're much stronger than he is because of a 250 pt gap. I played a recent game where I was intimidated by my opponent with a larger gap in my favour; the rating system just isn't all that accurate. Especially when you're playing abroad as is the case here.

[ChessHoodie]

Nothing to be upset about. Your endgame technique is just not as good as you think it is. When the Rook endgame started and you played 5 best moves in a row, it doesn't mean that you know what you are doing. Out of those 5 moves, two were forced, one was semi forced and the last two were natural. Once things became more concrete, and with more options your true level was revealed.

Example: Kf3-g3 ( instead of Kf3-g2) showed lack of understanding of rook endgames. It doesn't matter that both moves win. In that type of position an experienced player will want to play Kg2 and ONLY if for some SPECIFIC tactical reason it doesn't work, he will resort to Kg3. Also you mentioned that you felt you didn't need to rush. That's not how one should be playing such a position. Namely the position is very concrete, and you can't make a move on general principles there. Also you mentioned that you wanted to prevent the white king from coming to e4 or f4, and that is not even possible ( he needs to be blocking the d4 pawn for a while).

I guess the solution is practice, practice, practice....

[carokus]

It is funny because yesterday I had just an identical situation(but a different opening) but I actually blended it into a draw at the end
Also, I didn't exaggerate in saying it was the same, I literally had a winning position against a lower-rated player and I ended up sacing exchange for rook endgame 2 pawns up, and fambled it into a draw

[JulianKarpiuk]

2:40 The difference is that you get enough dynamic counterplay on the queenside -> Qa5, Rb8, king is still not castled -> white will be unable to stabilize his position and use his passed pawn to win if you play actively.
Capturing right away gives white the extra tempi he needs to not have tactical problems.

I've followed you since you started this channel. I recently got back to watching your videos and was sad to see you haven't really made much progress in the last few years. What I want to say might sound harsh but it comes from a good place because I want you to get better. I see some flaws in your thinking that in my opinion make it almost impossible for you to improve as a chess player:

1. You tend to calculate lines way too deeply -> you're not strong enough of a player right now to simply out-calculate your opponents. You're going to make mistakes in your calculation and that's what often happens. You tend to spend way too much time on calculating very concrete variations and too little time on considering the big picture and just playing good moves.


2. Your understanding of pawn structures and how pawns work with pieces needs improvement but most importantly it needs more attention and appreciation on your part. Again, you tend to calculate deep variations which, if they're not calculated perfectly, just make your pieces bad. And even if it's calculated perfectly and you end up a pawn up or something, the resulting position is bad strategically for you. Again, focus on making moves that help your pieces get more active, not moves that win material. Winning material is great IF it doesn't come at a cost of your pieces/king safety etc.

3. You seem to keep giving too much attention to opening theory and too little to attention understanding what you're doing in the middlegame and the endgame. I remember a game of yours against an IM I think he was. You prepared some kind of line against him in the Sicilian as white, you knew like 15-20 moves of theory but the very first moment he got ouf of your preparation you blundered. Focus on learning how to play good moves, not engine moves. Your knowledge of opening theory is already strong enough as it is. You could easily go to 2300FIDE with your current opening knowledge IF you had other areas of your chess game in order. Games at 2000FIDE are almost always decided by tactical and strategical blunders.


3. Your language when analysing games often consists of words as "I was scared he would X so I played Y". I hear "scared" a lot from you when watching your analysis. Nothing to be scared of, just play moves you objectively find best. Otherwise it makes you play passive chess and not go for the kill.
Like in this game, you have to ask yourself what's your advantage in the endgame -> it's your passed pawn and your exchange. Your rooks need activity, your passed pawn needs to be pushed. You focused too much on preventing your opponents idea instead of making him solve problems as well.

Lastly, don't expect people to resign just because you won an exchange. As has been proved in this game, fighting on and making the opponent prove he's winning is a very good thing to do. I won many "lost" games and probably lost/drew even more "won" games because the opponent was stubborn. We're not GMs, 4:27 is way to early to "expect someone to resign". :P

I recommend you these to improve:
Chess structures by Mauricio Flores -> it helped me GREATLY to understand the pawn structure transitions to know if I should close the position/open the position, keep it as it is knowing how it helps/hurts my pieces and how it affects the plans.

Pawns are not people -> a catchphrase from GM Kraai from the ChessDojo youtube channel. It is golden and made my understanding of chess SO MUCH BETTER. Your pawns are there for your pieces! Type this catchphrase in youtube search and you'll find what you need.

Positional Play by Aagard -> this is a grandmaster level book, the examples there are too difficult for me and you BUT it has an epic premise -> you just need to ask yourself three questions to play good moves -> Where are the weaknesses? What's my opponent's idea? What is my worst placed piece? Definitely helped me find good moves more often.

And of course books on tactics, plenty of those. Woodpecker method was a nice read for example.


Hoping this was somewhat helpful. This comment is not aimed at discouraging you or hating on you, I really wish you all the best with your chess journey. Cheers!

[AnlamK]

Congrats to the players for the draw because I would have managed to lose with either side.

[ZachMay]

You played well. Hindsight is always 20-20. It is interesting when the game turned around was when you started moving your King into position to defend against the pawn storm. In principle moving the King would be a sound strategy but in this case it was a waste of tempo. I have a hard time moving my King when it is advantageous but in this case it seems that your tendency to move the King was habit-based and arguably lost you the match

[marknieuweboer]

It actually depends on White if the CK is going to be a slow, positional game or a wild tactical one. That's because 1...c6 (while being a perfect first move - GM Mednis and IM Teschner) doesn't develop any piece. Eg White, if happy with solid equality, perfectly can play 3.Nc3 followed by castling kingside (unless Black plays the disreputable 5...gxf6).

[ПавелПанин-ою]

Hi, Stjepan. I was wondering what type of rating is 1981. Is it current or mb peak? It has stayed the same for a while, you have played a couple of tournaments and its is still 1981. Thx for the explanation in advance. Love your videos

[rumaulia]

16:37 Kc4 and ...d3 should win right? White rook doesn't have any meaningful check

[einstraenbesen]

Have you ever considered covering the d3 endgame variation of the Caro Kann?
1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d3 dxe4 4. dxe4 Qxd1+ 5. Kxd1
It was a new idea by Lc0 and I don't think many Caro Kann players are aware that this line even exists

[MrIAMpeanut]

Seeing the thumbnail i somehow knew this would be a caro kann video 😅

[SnydeX]

Panov is the most threatening reply to the caro. Hate to see it.

[fitmtla]

Why should your opponent resign after a strategic mistake? Its not like this is a GM level match and players make no mistakes. As we saw later in the endgame you were not playing precise enough to maintain advantage on every move. He actually equalized and you weren’t able to convert…