Completely Annotated King's Knight's Gambit, Part 1

My idea for this post is a thorough annotation of each and every move of a King's Knight's Gambit main line (Fischer defense), with the ideas behind, the implications of, and the changes caused by that move. Mentioning but not exploring variations, in order to keep focus and avoid confusion.

1.e4

What is the idea of 1.e4? White has taken the pawn from the 4-time over-protected e2 square (from Qd1, Ke1, Bf1, and Ng1) to the completely unprotected e4 square. Viewed that way, it is a real "throw the hat over the fence" move. Compare against 1.d4, where a similarly 4-time over-protected pawn is similarly pushed 2 squares but remains protected by Qd1. So what are the corresponding benefits of 1.e4? I used to think the biggest benefit was the releasing of Bf1 (to 5 additional squares from 0) and Qd1 (to 4 additional squares from 0) (and Ng1 (to 1 additional square from 2) and Ke1 (to 1 additional square from 0)). But then why is 1.e3, which accomplishes the same thing, considered a bad opening move? And also note that 1.d4 is numerically equal in that regard except for Qd1 getting only 2 additional squares (d2,d3) instead of 4 (e2,f3,g4,h5). The answer as against 1.e3 is positional, offensive, and defensive I think. Positionally, the pawn on e3 is just a big block to the Bc1 later whereas e4 blocks nothing. Offensively, the pawn on e4 controls squares in the Black camp (d5,f5) which e3 of course does not, and also "threatens" to move into the Black camp itself (e5). Defensively, it is directly blocking Black from pushing a pawn to e4 herself. As against 1.d4, e4's advantage is a much greater latent potential against f7 should the opportunity arise (Bc4, Qf3, Qh5), as well as against Ke8 itself in some circumstances (Bb5,Qh5), none of which is facilitated by 1.d4.

As to the risk from e4 being unprotected, what can Black really do about it in the short term? One immediate attack on it which Black can launch is 1...Nf6 (Alekhine's Defense), when White's pawn simply turns the tables on the knight by enacting her "offensive" threat 2.e5, after which 2...Nd5 3.d4 seems to be the main line. The only other immediate attacks on e4 are with pawns themselves, 2...d5 (Scandinavian Defense) and 2...f5 (Fred Defense), both of which White simply answers by capturing the attacker. The only 2-move attacks by pieces available to Black (ignoring the suicidal 1...d6 2...Bf4) are 1...Na6 (Lemming Defense) intending 2...Nc5, which White preempts easily and obviously with 2.d4, and 1...b6 (Owen's Defense) preparing 2...Bb7, but White has time to defend comfortably: 1...b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 (however note that 3...Nf6 can no longer be answered by 4.e5, because of 4...Bxg2).

1...e5

Black mirrors White's move, for all of the same reasons White chose it. The only difference being that Black is already blocked from pushing the pawn further, so in particular Black does not have the corresponding option of 2...e4 should White now play 2.Nf3 that White would have had (2.e5) should Black have played 1...Nf6. Such is the advantage of White having the first move. On the other hand, Black is now blocking White's push as well, which is one reason the Petroff Defense (2.Nf3 Nf6) is still viable for Black.

The other "good" Black response to 1.e4 is 1...c5, the Sicilian Defense, which sort of sidesteps all the issues raised by 1.e4. Except for leaving e5 as an option for White of course.

2.f4

The f pawns are important king protectors, especially at the beginning of the game. To move one is to open a dangerous line into the king, the e1-to-h4 diagonal in this case. The f4 move also takes the pawn from a protected square (by Ke1) to a square that is not only not protected but that is already controlled by Black! Welcome to the King's Gambit.

So what are the advantages? How can Black get away with this? What is the idea? First, although attacked itself, f4 also attacks Black's undefended e5, so forces Black to make a decision. Second, f4 is latently protected by Bc1; all White needs to do is move the d pawn. So Black's opportunity to grab the f4 pawn outright may be limited; and after grabbing the f4 pawn Black may quickly face the challenge of having to defend f4 herself or lose it to a good White development move (Bxf4). Third, if Black takes on f4, she gives up both the block of the e4 pawn and the control of the d4 square, giving White the moves d4 and e5 free and clear. This third purpose is called "distraction", in this case of the pawn on e5.

Is it worth it? I don't think so, which is why I don't play the King's Gambit as White and try to disprove its effectiveness as Black. Here's one demonstration that the threat against the undefended e5 is utterly nullified by the e1-to-h4 weakness: if Black declines the gambit and even leaves e5 undefended by playing 2...Bc5, White cannot even take e5 due to 3.fxe5 Qh4+; since 4.Ke2 Qxe4 is checkmate, the only choice is 4.g3 when 4...Qxe4+ 5.Qe2 Qxh1 leaves White down a whole rook for nothing.


2...exf4

I agree with Fischer, "The refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it." The disadvantages of this move have already been mentioned.What are the advantages besides the gain of material? The main one is the hit on g3 which adds significantly to White's e1-to-h4 weakness. Qh4+ has become an immediate threat because White no longer has g3 as a good counter to the move: 3...Qh4+ 4.g3? fxg3 5.hxg3? Qxh1. A secondary tactic that the move has made possible is the pin of e4 against Ke1 via Qe7.

There are three basic ways for White to meet the main threat, 1) take control of h4 thus directly preventing Qh4+, 2) make a safe(r) nest at f1 for the king to retreat into by moving the Bf1, or 3) shore up g3 with any piece other than the king, so that the g3 defense again works. 3.Nf3 seems the natural way to accomplish #1 and is the best move overall in my opinion, so it is addressed below as the main line. But it is worth considering the other ways to respond and how/why they are not as good.

There are actually four additional ways to accomplish #1: 1a) The immediate 3.g3 of course controls h4 before the queen can get there, but Black being already a pawn up is happy to force pawn trades while further breaking up White's king's defenses with 3...fxg3 4.hxg3 d5; 1b) 3.h4 occupies and controls h4 but is too easily doubled-up on via 3...Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 leaving both g3 and g4 very vulnerable, to e.g. N-h5-g3 and/or a later Bg4, and leaves f4 untouched; 1c) 3.Qg4, the only move that both controls h4 and shores up g3, with a side benefit of attacking f4, but it fails to attacks upon it followed by Black's second tactic (pin and win of the e pawn) via 3...d5 4.Qxf4 Bd6 5.e5 Qe7 6.d4 f6; 1d) 3.Qh5 also controls h4 with a sneaky Qe5+ threat, but Black just prevents the check and then drives the queen away with 3...Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 and the e4 pawn also falls; if instead 4.Bc4 (mate threat), then 4...Qe7 (also pinning e4) with Nd4 and Nf6 to follow.

White has two reasonable ways to accomplish #2: 2a) 3.Bc4, the King's Bishop's Gambit, favored by some over 3.Nf3, but I think 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1 Nf6 5.Nf3 Qh6 is a refutation (see my blog post); 2b) 3.Be2 is interesting, an only slightly more cramped version of the King's Bishop's Gambit: 3...d5 4.exd5 Qh4+ 5.Kf1 Bd6.

White has three ways to accomplish #3: 3a) 3.Qg4 already discussed as #1c above; 3b) 3.Qf3 which seems to be better than its reputation, both nullifying the immediate threat and attacking f4. One key is that Qf3 is unpinning h2 after g3 is played, because it then covers the Rh1. Black has to find (or know) that the best exploit has now changed to 3...Nc6, having some threats of hitting the queen via Nd4 or Ne5 but more importantly eyeing the fork on c2 (via Nd4 or Nb4) which the queen has abandoned. Book theory then seems to be 4.c3 Ne5 5.Qxf4 Bd6 6.Qe3 Ng4 7.Qh3, but a significant improvement for Black is 4.c3 Qh4+! 5.g3 fxg3 6.hxg3 Qe7, because White's Ng1 is now blocked from defending the pinned e4. So that theory seems to be incorrect and the main line is instead 3.Qf3 Nc6 4.Ne2!, which covers Nd4, attacks f4 a second time, shores up g3, and blocks the e-file pin all at once. (Black Nb4 is met by Na3.) 3c) The immediate 3.Ne2 is bad. Although it shores up g3, 3...Qh4+ 4.g3 fxg3 5.Nxg3 leaves White just a pawn down with a pinned knight on g3.

3.Nf3

The best move, directly preventing Qh4+ per above. Let's look at what else it does or doesn't do.  First, it doesn't do anything about stopping pins on the e file, Black's secondary strength (except for getting White closer to castling). The knight has moved from a square where it had only three moves to one where it now has five. Two of those potential moves are into Black territory (Ne5, Ng5), and they are important enough to have been given names (Kieseritzky Gambit, Allgaier Gambit) when used in the so-called Classical variation of the King's Gambit after 3...g5 4.h4 g4.

3...d6

The Fischer defense. Which he developed in 1960 or 1961 as an alternative to the Classical defense 3...g5. For more details see my blog post. Fischer called this "a high-class waiting move", but there is more to it than just that. The "waiting" part undoubtedly has to do with not rushing to defend f4 when it is not yet attacked. And as Fischer developed the defense in response to losing to a Kieseritzky Gambit (http://www.chessgames.com), it is safe to assume its main purpose is to preempt any Ne5 ideas by White. Other advantages to note: it also stops the pawn from advancing to e5 unhindered, and it releases the Bc8 (to 5 additional squares from 0) (and the Ke8 (to 1 additional square from 1) and the Qd8 (to 1 additional square from 4)). An additional subtle advantage is that it also permits Black the option of d5 (in addition to dxe5) if White plays e5, without the possibility of being captured en passant. Some disadvantages to note: it has blocked the Bf8 down to a single available move (a loss of 4 from the previous 5), and it has opened the a4-e8 diagonal into Black's king.  Another possible "disadvantage" could be that it doesn't attack anything the way d5 or f5 would (e4), thus giving White a choice of moves.

More to come in Part 2, including a possible "novelty" for Black on move 7.

Robbiani dermal-optic test

Time for another Star Trek "tech" analysis, following on from the earlier Corbomite post. This one is from the last episode of the Original Series, Turnabout Intruder.  Once senior staff realized something was really off with Kirk -- and about time too; he's been off for two or three acts already -- McCoy decides he needs to run the "Robbiani dermal-optic test" on him to compare against his recorded results when he entered Starfleet.  Naturally there are no false positives or false negatives on any Star Trek medical test (and no cast, crew, or character named Marge Innovera either :-)).  I wonder what writer came up this this amazingly bogus but authentic-sounding name for a miracle test, maybe Roddenberry himself?

Of course, its function in the story is to provide the hard justification required for the characters to actually believe the otherwise-incredible personality-swap/body-swap that the audience has been clued into from the beginning.  So what does it mean?

Unlike "corbomite", this term is of course built from actual medical/scientific-terminology roots -- dermal means "of the skin", and "optic" means "of the sight".  But there the reality ends and the fantasy/bogosity begins.  First of all, there is an actual term "dermal-optic" but it refers to a mythical ability (appropriately enough) to get visual data through one's skin alone, with the bogus ability usually claimed to be via the fingertips.  But that is not at all the meaning Star Trek has for the term.  Instead it refers to a test that supposedly combines both skin responses and eye (pupil) responses to various wavelengths of light to identify a unique person (or soul?).  So second of all, it should have been called dermal-ocular or dermal-pupilar instead.  But oh well, they had to get one of these episodes out each week, and the series was on the verge of cancellation, so who has the time or the will to be really accurate anyway.

And to really turn up the snark, the way Shatner was overacting the part, they should have just called it the hysterometer test and been done with it.  (McCoy, to "Lester":  yep, he's cooked Jim.)

Anyway, so we get to Robbiani.  Just a common Italian surname, as far as I can tell.  No idea where it might have been picked up by the writer(s).

Followup:  After writing the above, I went back to review the episode (via transcript), and I see that I am quite wrong about a number of points.  First of all, the test did not detect any significant difference in Kirk's "emotional and mental" state.  Its literary function was instead to raise the dramatic tension even higher, not to balance an unbelievable phenomenon against an irrefutable test.  Instead, the actual route of proof in the episode went via a Vulcan mind meld (with "Lester") through the standard courtroom trope of self-incrimination, assisted by the convenient weakening of the mind swap itself.  Makes my cynical self wonder whether Shatner insisted on the final version in order to have even more opportunity to go completely over the top in the courtroom acting.

Second, a minor point:  Kirk's previous test for comparison was when he assumed command of the Enterprise, not when he entered Starfleet.

Finally, there is nothing in the episode that mentions the eye or the pupil, other than McCoy telling "Kirk" to open his eyes during the test.  "Pupil" was (possibly erroneously) extrapolated by someone at memory-alpha.org.  So for all we know, the "test" could be directly monitoring the optic nerve or something, which would justify the name, counter to my above criticism.

For literary honesty and for entertainment value, I haven't edited my original text above.  :-)

The Advancement of Chess

What is the best way for an individual to advance the game of chess in the broadest sense?

I can think of two main senses in which I mean that -- increasing the quality of play globally, and improving standard chess theory.  I am less interested in chess engine improvement and endgame tablebase generation, which seem to be in good shape.  Chess engine improvement has plenty of financial incentive.  And tablebase generation is low-hanging fruit intellectually, with plenty of academic support.

The obvious way to increase quality of play amongst players is to teach chess.  Under a presumption that serious play improves any person's quality of play, another way would be to run tournaments.  In both cases, the easier route would be to join an existing organization rather than start from scratch.  A significant difference between the two is that teaching would require/result in more self-improvement in the game itself.

Finding improvements in standard chess theory does not seem hard.  But proving them, and getting them accepted generally, looks much much harder, probably involving at minimum the publication of a book.  Just using them in one's own games hardly can make a difference.  For just one thing, it requires the cooperation of one's opponent to reach relevant positions.  :-)

Any suggestions and advice welcome.

A Bust to the King's Bishop's Gambit, Part 2

So here is my proposed "bust" to the King's Bishop's Gambit, with best play by White (main line).

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 Nf6 5.Nf3 Qh6

The "theory" move here is 5...Qh5 instead, presumably to prevent the perceived threat of 6.Ne5.  But it turns out to be no threat: 5...Qh6 6.Ne5 d5 7.exd5 Bd6, or 7.Bxd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Be7, both leave Black a solid pawn up.

The key features of 5...Qh6 are that it 1) protects f4 immediately, leaving Black other, better, options than the weakening g5 in response to a White d3 or d4, and 2) protects e3, at least temporarily, after the Black maneuver N-g4-e3+ Bxe3 fxe3, again giving Black time to gain compensation if White goes after e3.

White's best try here is to accept a slight positional advantage for the gambit pawn:

6.Nc3

Other tries all have good answers by Black:  6.d4 Bb4 (6...Nxd4? 7.Qe2=) 7.Ne5 O-O 8.Nd3 (8.Qf3 Qh4) Nc6.  Or 6.Qe2 Be7 7.e5 Ng4.  Or 6.Kg1 d6.  Or 6.Ne5 covered above.  The Ng4 idea comes into play if White plays the weak d3, e.g.:  6.d3 Ng4 7.Nc3 c6 8.Qe1 Bb4 9.Qh4 Qxh4 10.Nxh4 Ne3+ 11.Bxe3 fxe3 12.Re1

6...d6 7.d4 c6 8.Kg1 Nh5 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Be2 Ndf6

Or 8.Qd2 Nh5 9.Kf2 g5 10.h4 (10.Re1 Bg7;10.Rd1 g4) gxh4 11.Rxh4 Rg8 12.e5 d5 13.Bd3 Be7 14.Rh2 Bg4 15.Ne2 Qg7

Fried Liver, Fegatello, Chess a theoretical draw

I know I still have a loose end in the blog to close -- the King's Bishop Gambit main line, 5.Nf3 with my preferred reply of 5...Qh6 (instead of book 5...Qh5).  As per my Chess Theory post, it too leads to a virtually equal position with best play.

Which leads me to the topic of this post, another draw-by-repetition end to a theoretical opening line.  I was interested to see GM Andy Soltis's article in the August 2012 Chess Life (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/11830/661) on that very topic (pp. 12-13).  (Was he one of the 2 pageviewers of my Chess Theory post? :-) )  Andy points out main-line draws-by-repetition for Najdorf Poisoned Pawn Accepted, Muzio Gambit Accepted, Rice Gambit, Belgrade Gambit, Richter-Rauzer 7.Be3, a Queen's Gambit declined line, and a couple of Modern Defense lines.

And I believe I have found another draw-by-repetition with best play, in the Fried Liver:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Ncb4 9.a3 Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1

I call this the Full Fried Liver, as opposed to 10...Nd4 (the Weak Fried Liver?) which also seems to be a dead-even game in the proposed main line 11.Bxd5+ Kd6 12.Qf7 Qe7 13.Ne4+ Kd7 14.Nc5+ Kd6 15.Nxb7+ Bxb7 16.Qxe7+ Bxe7 17.Bxb7 Raf8 18.Rf1.

11.Nxd5 c6

Perhaps surprisingly, the popular line 11...Kd6 loses here to 12.d4:  11...Kd6 12.d4 c6 13.Bf4! exf4 14.Qxf4+ Kd7 15.Re1 and it's mate in 7 due to the Qf5+ threat (15...cxd5?? 16.Bb5#).  I recently won an over-the-board game in this line after 12...Kd7? 13.Re1 Qh4? 14.Qf5+ Kc6 15.Qxe5 Bd6 (protecting against 16.Qxc7#, but:) 16.Bb5+ Kxb5 17.Nc3+ Kc4 18.Qd5+ Kd3 19.Re3#.

Black's only reasonable try after 11...Kd6 12.d4 seems to be 12...Be6 but it also seems to lose, to 13.Re1 b5 14.Nb4 bxc4 15.Qc6+ Ke7 16.Bg5+ Kf7 17.Bxd8 Rxd8 18.Qxc7 Rd7 19.Qxe5.  (Or 13...c6 is even worse: 14.Rxe5 Bxd5 15.Rxd5+ cxd5 16.Qxd5+ Kc7 17.Bf4+.)

Update.  There are improvements on both sides leading to a different main line after 11...Kd6 12.d4 Be6 13.Re1.  After 13...b5 14.Nb4, 14...Bxc4! is a big improvement for Black because it allows 15.Qc6+ Ke7 16.Bg5+ Kf7 17.Bxd8 Rxd8 18.Qxc7 Be7!, and then also 19.Nc6 Rxd4+ 20.Nxd4 Rd8 21.Qxe5 Bf6! with minimal White advantage.  But White has an even bigger improvement in 11...Kd6 12.d4 Be6 13.Re1 b5 14.Rxe5!, when 14...bxc4 15.Nf4 is decisive for White due to the control of e6.

So 13...b5 is busted for Black.  The main line seems to be instead 13...h5 (threatening a royal skewer (ok actually a royal pin, but skewer sounds better)) 14.Qe4 and White cleans up on the e file: 14...Kd7 Qxe5 15...Bg4+ 16.f3 Bd6 17.Qxg7+ Kc6 18.fxg4 b5 19.Bd3 with threat Be4.

12.Nc7+ Kd6 13.Nxa8 Qh4 14.Qd3+ Qd4 15.Qxd4+ exd4 16.d3 Bf5 17.Re1 Kd7 18.Re5 g6 19.Ra5 a6 20.Nb6+ Kc7 21.Na8+ Kd7 draw.

If anyone thinks they have an improvement for either side, please post a comment.  Thanks.

A Bust to the King's Bishop's Gambit

Fischer's "A Bust to the King's Gambit" was really only a "bust" of the King's Knight's Gambit.  As I mentioned in the Bishop's Gambit game post, I have developed a response, or "bust", to the Bishop's Gambit.  So I should flesh that out for any readers.  If I am successful, you can file this under Fischer's concluding statement to the effect that White can play different moves (in this case 3.Bc4) but will just lose in a different way.

This post is dedicated to "zavenc" on ICC, a Turkish player who likes marathons, and who likes to accommodate me in ICC marathons by often playing the King's Gambit as White, both Knight's and Bishop's!  :-)

1.e4 e5 2.f4  King's Gambit.

2...exf4  Accepted.

3.Bc4  King's Bishop's Gambit

3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1 Nf6  This is my proposed "bust".

As elaborated in previous KG posts, the knight has a free path to g4, and then to e3 after White plays d4.  In addition to immediately attacking e4 of course.

Theory only considers the obvious 5.Nf3 at this point, which I'll cover in a later post.  But in honor of zavenc's preferred line, I'll cover it first:

5.Nc3  which protects e4.  But because the queen has not been ejected, it allows Black's plan with a mate threat which must be answered:

5...Ng4 6.Nh3  This is zavenc's preferred answer, guarding both the mate threat at f2 and the capture threat on h2.  6.Qf3 is also possible and may be better:

Here Black's most direct response is 6...Qxh2 7.Qh3 Qg3 8.Qxg3 fxg3 9.Nge2 c6 10.Nxg3 d6; Black has exchanged queens and exchanged her f pawn for White's h pawn.

The alternative capture 6...Nxh2+ is also possible.  It gets Black the exchange in addition, but gives White a massive development advantage as compensation: 7.Rxh2 Qxh2 8.d4 Qg3 9.Bxf4 Qxf3 10.Nxf3 d6.

Black's best response to the 6.Qf3 alternative however, is probably an "attacking retreat" making use of the available queen-bishop fork:  6...Ne5 7.Qe2 d6 8.Nd5 (or 8.Nf3 Nxf3 9.Qxf3 c6) 8...Qd8 9.Nf3 Nxc4 10.Qxc4 c6 11.Nxf4 Nd7.

6...c6  This is needed to neutralize the threat of the Nc3 hitting c7.

From this point on, Black holds the threat of d6 followed by Ne3 or Ne5 hitting the knight on h3.

7.d4 g5  Hitting f4, protecting f4.

8.e5  Ready to exchange on d6 or f6, exposing Black's king.

In our last game, zavenc played 8.Qe1 to eject the black queen.  I don't know if this is in his repertoire or just an over-the-board choice, but it doesn't seem best.  In fairness, in the game I responded badly also, pulling the trigger with Ne3+ and thus throwing the f pawn; and zavenc did win the game in the end.  But the correct response to 8.Qe1 is 8...Qxe1+ 9.Kxe1 h6, when White has nothing better than 10.Nf2 d6 11.Nxg4 Bxg4 12.Be2 f5 13.Bxg4 fxg4, Black simply holding the solid extra pawn.

8...Ne3+ 9.Bxe3 fxe3  Black carries through on her plan.

10.Qe2  White has to find this move; nothing else works.  It hits e3 and continues the lineup against the king.  But White also has to protect against developing threats at f2 and c4 simultaneously.

10...b5!  An important in-between move for Black.  Now White has to choose between her bishop and her pawn center.

11.Bd3  The more likely move psychologically, saving the bishop.  11.Bb3 fails to the combo threat b4 and Ba6.  But White can also sac the bishop for e3 plus counterplay against the king:  11.Qxe3 bxc4 12.Ne4 h6 13.Re1 Kd8 14.Nhf2 Qf4 15.Qc3 Na6 16.a3 Bb7; Black will lose c4 but otherwise is secure.

11...Qxd4 12.Nxg5 Qxe5 13.Nf3 Qf4  and Black will lose e3 but still holds a solid extra pawn.

For example:

14.Nd1 Bc5 15.Nxe3 Kd8 16.Nf5 Re8 17.Qd2 Qxd2 18.Nxd2 d5
Or 14.g3 Qh6 15.Nd1 d5 16.Qxe3+ Qxe3 17.Nxe3 Bg7 18.c3 O-O


So that's my first "bust" of the Bishop's Gambit.  Comments, criticisms, improvements, corrections, suggestions all welcome.  Thanks for reading.

Chess Study and Training

One purpose of making the 3 previous posts was to improve my chess game.  In a roundabout way it has, I think.  While any type of chess study is said to improve one's game, at my age I'm looking for the most time-efficient method.  Those posts took a long time to put together, but somehow their lessons on my (poor) time usage during games led me to a resource that had almost certainly helped me in the past, but which I had since neglected.  In one over-the-board tournament a couple years back, in the first round as I recall, I had managed to reach a king+rook vs. king endgame but with very little clock time left.  I am convinced that it was the KRk bot training on ICC that I had included as part of my tourney prep that had converted a loss (on time) into a win in that case.

So the first step in my thinking was:  I need to find some chess training, as opposed to just study.  And the next step was going back to ICC's KRk and developing a ladder goal of completing three sequential all-best-move mates with at least 3:00 remaining on my clock (and no takebacks), with the next step in the ladder to be KQk.  I'm still working on the KRk.  Some of those first moves are really hard to know/guess.

I've recently gone to the nice online tablebase site http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en to get a better overview some of the trickier first moves, e.g. when the black king starts in the center.

What I've found from just doing this training, is that it seems to have expanded way beyond just one set of mate patterns, into a better/quicker understanding in my mind of how rooks "work" in general.  I recently dispatched an opponent fairly handily with low time on my clock and only up the exchange or so in a busy position, with two rooks working together.

After KQk, I'm not sure how my ladder will go; the sequence in ICC seems to be KBBk, KBNk, KQkn, KRkn, KQkr.

Comments/suggestions welcome.