[Event "ECC"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2013.02.12"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Body, Giles"]
[Black "Earnshaw, Terry"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C02"]
[PlyCount "90"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 {The Advance Variation, usually leading to a slow and
mysterious struggle on the wings.} 3... c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 (5... Bd7 {
is my preference.}) (5... Nge7 {and}) (5... Nh6 {are also played.}) 6. Be2 (6.
a3 {John Watson} 6... c4 (6... f6 {John Watson I have suggested this move as a

Just a little practical example of something I often talk about: move order in analysis.

If you have a good idea, try it with a different order of moves: it might be even better!

For example:

Well, a loss for the juniors, but by the narrowest of margins, and against a team who were a bit stronger than they looked on paper. A couple of the Gambits players have had much higher grades in the past, and in the end I think experience told.

In making notes on games, I've probably explained lots of chess mistakes, and why they were mistakes. I might say, this Black move is a mistake, because White now plays A, and this works because if B then C and if D then E. (Or, White should have played A, etc.)

But there is another side to each mistake, which I can't tell anything about, but which perhaps you can, and you should try. A mistake in a chess move is also a mistake in thinking.

A tale of three discoveries: a discovered attack proved the winning move in all three games.

Unmasked threats - discovered attacks and discovered checks - are the most difficult threats to spot. You pay attention to the piece that moves, but the threat comes from the piece behind.

I've attached a discovered attack training page - get your eye in! In 2010, the Devon U14 team lost an awful lot of points (or a lot of awful points) to discovered attacks, and the puzzles are all things that they missed.