As part of my studies in Economics, my econometrics class required us to write a paper for our final project. This is summary of that paper I wrote regarding cheating in during chess.com Titled Tuesday events. If you would like a full copy, please feel free to reach out and I can send you a PDF.

---
## Abstract  
In recent years, the popularity of chess has exploded. In addition to in-person games, online play has become extremely popular. However, as games moved online, the rate of cheating increased. With the inability to prove whether a player is cheating, some players have resorted to comparing players over the board (OTB) ratings. The belief was that comparing OTB ratings when one player outperforms another could indicate cheating. Others have claimed that this is not a valid indicator, as other factors, such as experience playing online, could be a factor in the unexpected win. This paper analyzes these factors and their effect on online performance. After tracking players across several online tournaments, we are able to conclude that neither OTB ratings nor experience are factors in determining tournament performance. We observe the online rating of a player as the most significant factor in determining tournament rank.

## Introduction

In recent years, the popularity of chess has increased significantly. Due to COVID lockdowns, players have migrated more towards playing online. Online chess content, such as streamed games and the Netflix series *The Queen's Gambit*, fueled its popularity.

The most popular platform for playing online is the website [chess.com](http://chess.com) (Chesscom). By the end of 2022, their site had over 100 million users (Team (CHESScom), 2022). As of April 2023, they had 11 million active users daily (Ritchel, 2023).

As games started being played online, the rate of cheating has increased. Chesscom has methods in place to detect cheating and remove offending players from their platform. While Chesscom indicates that they close over 1,000 accounts each week, they do not make their methods public (“What Do I Need to Know about Fair Play on Chess.Com?”, 2024).

With the lack of transparency in methodology and an inability to prove definitively whether a player is cheating, some have resorted to comparing over-the-board (OTB) ratings. The International Chess Federation (FIDE) assigns these ratings based on an Elo rating system. They calculate these ratings as a result of FIDE-arbitrated games.

The belief is that OTB ratings from FIDE are more accurate than those assigned by Chesscom. When one player outperforms another and they have a lower FIDE rating, it is used as evidence of cheating.

Other prominent players have claimed that this is not a valid indicator. They have claimed that other factors, such as experience playing online, could account for the unexpected win.

By comparing players’ results in a controlled setting, we can use the number of games a player has played online as a proxy for experience. We can then compare the effects of rating and experience on overall performance within a tournament. This will allow us to determine whether concerns of cheating with rating disparity are valid.

## Data

Chesscom hosts weekly tournaments for money prizes. One of the most popular of those, *Titled Tuesday*, is a tournament specifically for players that have obtained a FIDE title. Leveraging Chesscom, I was able to obtain information on player statistics and tournament results. Using players' names and countries, I was able to access their OTB FIDE rating from the official FIDE website. 

The following table represents panel data of results from a select number of players. These players participated in six specific tournaments between February 26, 2024 and March 27, 2024.

![Variable Details](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/5MdRmlCDq1piBEPgFTdjkq/f93ea427d26083fda3b182ad4eabb9bd/image8.png)

The dependent variable rank (**rank**) is the player’s resulting rank after tournament completion. The independent variables, player’s Chesscom blitz rating (**blitz**), and the total number of blitz games the player has recorded on the Chesscom platform (**totgames**) are captured immediately after the tournament completes. The players’ official FIDE ratings (**ofide**) are posted monthly, and were captured at the end of February 2024.

For the player **rank**, going forward I will be referencing the log of the rank ln(**rank**) which I will represent as **lrank.** A percentage change in the rank provides a better representation of the value of a change in tournament ranking. For example, moving from second place to first has a higher value than moving from 200th to 199th.

The following graphs provide an initial summary of the relationships between our dependent and independent variables.

![dot graph of FIDE rating](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/2vOJDKbnRCNvlX1p6J0N4u/cfde2292f248ee9ad5af08e9f5fba059/image2.png)

![Total Games chart](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/57ikGFh5G8aVr6YmdlLIj3/08b17e443fd35dcda2b19fdb4ba05bc8/image9.png)

![Blitz rating chart](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/3CrMwGnbDM23WLmwKhV8DG/3dd4a5a3508dff924570434d376d9ca8/image7.png)

With tournament rankings, lower numbers are considered better. Meaning first place is a better result than second. Since higher values for our independent variables are indications of higher skills, we anticipate negative relationships between our dependent and independent variables. At first glance, **blitz** rating is the only clear variable that displays this negative relationship.

## Methodology

My first model was a simple linear regression of our dependent and independent variables.

![regression equation](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/2obKhNvy5UDNhSSSGaM1qi/32d4b874a4a67649d27e6493fff005d2/image4.png)

![initial regression results](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/6hqkKTw14nzByBEgpm3FxF/0795dc185e12cb3a598edf627bc72c7d/image1.png)

The initial model showed a statistically significant coefficient for **blitz** at the 1% level. Total games (**totgames**) showed statistical significance at the 10% level. 

Based on the strength of the relationship of ***blitz*** on the dependent variable, I included the polynomials ***blitz2*** and ***blitz3*** which are the **blitz** term squared and cubed respectively. All three of these variables showed to be statistically significant, with a chi-squared value 10.24, Prob\>chi2 \= .0059.

I also included the original **totgames** and **ofide** variables. It is important to note that **ofide** is susceptible to measurement error. As players play less frequently in person, their ratings might not be accurate reflections of their true chess ability. This attenuation bias would lower the measured effect of **ofide** on **lrank**. However, our analysis is to determine the validity of comparing these ratings as they are reported. Therefore, we can include the **ofide** variable, and accept any attenuation bias. 

![secondary regression equation](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/wlDaD3XGyf5WYrwUtTrRR/dea68b120267cad17cdad333a416623c/image3.png)

## Results

![regression chart](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/3uMPSLBcx6hjURL78oEKuO/6964d6c35ac5ea5cf13eaad8c017b09d/image5.png)

The interpretation of the inclusion of these terms can be described by taking the first derivative of our linear model with respect to **blitz**. Our result would be the following.

![linear model](//images.ctfassets.net/advboymm7uww/2faGMkDyIr3zL21w9RS0hR/64475fbfd71de100a7bb52dcc84d86f9/image6.png)

This would indicate that a 1 unit increase in **blitz** rating would result in a \-0.12399370705 (\~12%) decrease in **lrank**.

Similar to the basic linear regression model, **totgames** is statistically significant. However, the relationship is weak and positively correlated. Increasing the number of games played by 1 increased the rank by .000013 (%.0013). 

Players’ OTB rating, **ofide**, was also statistically insignificant and weakly related in this model. 

It is worth noting I tested a third model which included an interaction term between **totgames** and **blitz**. This was an attempt to assess whether or not the effect of **totgames** on **lrank** changed depending on the rating of a player. However, not only was the interaction term not statistically significant, a Ramsey RESET test provided enough evidence to reject the null that the model was correctly specified.

## Conclusion

While our second model provided a better fit of the data, the interpretation of the results is similar to our first. We can conclude that OTB ratings and experience playing online have little effect on tournament performance. It is also important to note that in both models, the OTB rating of a player does not have a statistically significant relationship on their ranking in a tournament. From this, we can conclude that we cannot use players’ OTB rating differences, or experience playing online, as indicators of cheating/not cheating during a given tournament.

Even though the model presented shows statistical significance between a players rating and their tournament ranking, the lower R2 indicates that there is still unobserved data being captured by the error term. Further research could include data on individual games within the tournaments. This could include recording winning streaks or the degree of the difference between players’ ratings. This data could help us provide more accurate coefficients.

This is an excerpt from a paper I wrote that analyzes different player factors and their effects on online chess tournament performance. After tracking players across several online tournaments, we are able to use regression analysis to determine which have a greater effect on tournament results.

Analyzing Tournament Chess Perfomance Factors

I went into the second day of the event with much more confidence than I had on the [first day](/chess/chicago-chess-center-5th-jane-addam-day-1). I had a better nights sleep, actually got in a breakfast, and had a perfect score to start the day.

Unfortunately, day 2 did not go as well as the first. I won't spoil how I did overall. For that you will need to read to the end.

## Game 4
This game was unfortunately a loss. Although I didn't feel too torn up about it. It was the highest rated player in my section. And he was a good sport afterwards, which always helps.

<iframe id="9992823" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;height:30rem;border:none;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=9992823"></iframe><script>window.addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"9992823"===e['data']['id']&&document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>

I did an analysis of this game and added it inline of the board above. The first thing I note is that I ran into time trouble at the end. I don't have the end of the game, but that is definitely where I lost. 

Also, I ran the game through the engine. My opponent and I up until that point both had 0 blunders and a 91.4% accuracy. Pretty solid for me considering how much higher rated he was.

Throughout the game there was some moves that I could have done differently. But it wasn't bad. I think aside from time management, I need to reevaluate how I counter this opening in the future. The engine questioned a good number of moves. But either way, the game was pretty even coming out of it.

## Game 5
This game was a solid win. My opponent dropped a pawn out of the opening. From there things started to go downhill. I think the psychological effect of taking a hit that early in the game probably helped me out.

<iframe id="9992891" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;border:none;height:30rem;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=9992891"></iframe><script>window.addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"9992891"===e['data']['id']&&document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>

I think my opponent's first mistake was not taking back on `c3` on move 6. Instead he opted for `6. Qf3`. Seemed like his thinking was to fork the two minor pieces. I assume he did this to avoid messing up his pawn structure. However, it allowed me to grab `6. ..Bxe4`.

What ended things for him was two moves later. He moved his bishop with `8. Bd3`. This allowed me to pick up the rook. From there all my moves seemed fairly intuitive. 

Again, the engine didn't pick up any blunders. Which at this point I think is what I should be shooting for. I didn't get into time trouble. Although this game was fairly straight forward early on so I didn't need a lot of thinking time. But again, overall a solid game.

## Game 6
This game had my only blunder of the tournament according to the engine. No surprise it ended in a loss. There were a couple of lessons learned though not related to the game itself I took with me.

<iframe id="9992925" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;border:none;height:30rem;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=9992925"></iframe><script>window.addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"9992925"===e['data']['id']&&document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>

Like all the other games, this one felt straight forward. I had a couple innaccuracies early on, but the game was pretty balanced. Being the last game of the tournament, I almost wanted to offer a draw. But the prospect of being someone who going into the tournament was rated about 400 elo higher than I was kept me playing.

My blunder didn't come all the way until move 42. My opponent moved his Queen to `40. ..Qb7`. We had did a similar dance back and forth. Me, thinking I could win, opted for a different move than dropping back my rook to `a5` (what I should have done). I went `42. Qa1`. This was huge. It allowed the `41. .. Qb5`. From there the Queen got in. It was all over.

I didn't get to record all my moves. Time trouble again. But the game ended with his pawns breaking through. Rooks and Queens got traded off. And his pawns were marching to promotion and couldn't be stopped. I resigned before that could happen.

## Lessons Learned
Overall I am super happy with my performance. I think the main themes I got out of this tournament were time control, and physical preparation. Meaning getting good rest, good meals, and relaxing between rounds.

One other aspect I could learn from is not being afraid to get half points. If I would have taken a bye in the last round, or offerred a draw, I would have finished a position up. Even my opponent in Game 6 told me he was considering offering one himself! I should have done that instead of trying to push for the win.

## Tournament Results
In the end, I had a 3 way tie for 2nd! I was super happy with that. And I was able to jump almost 150 elo, which is great as well.

Overall I was super happy with how everything went, and I came out of it even more determined to improve for my next OTB tournament.

Review of the games from the second day of the 5th Jane Addams tournament in Chicago.

Chicago Chess Center 5th Jane Addam Day 2

The Jane Addam's tournament was my first venture back into otb (over the board) chess. It was a two day tournament hosted by the Chicago Chess Center. 

I participated in the U1300 section. To be honest, I felt my rating was higher that what it was when I last got it rated (852). But I wasn't sure how much higher. I debated signing up for the U1500. But I figure for my first tournament back, might want to play it safe. 

The tournament for the U1300 section consisted of 6 rounds over two days. Each game was a 60+5 format. 

## Saturday
I was super nervous first day. Stress from work prevented me from getting enough sleep. And nervous prevented me from eating as much as I should. But I went into it optimistic. I knew I was going to try my hardest, but just told myself that as long as I left the tournament with a rating improvement, I could call it a win.

### Round 1
The first round I actually got a bye. Luckily, they let members of different sections pair up for rated matches if they received byes. I got paired up with someone who was from the U1700 section. Luckily I didn't know this going into the match. Otherwise, I would have been much more nervous than I was.

<iframe id="9759429" class="board" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;height:30rem;border:none;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=9759429"></iframe><script>window.addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"9759429"===e['data']['id']&&document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>

My opponent opened with e4. With black I have been finding success with the Caro-Kann. Things went smoothly out of the opening. 

Reviewing the engine, I had a couple of inaccuracies. But at my rating level I am shooting for no blunders, so I am fine with that. My mistake came at move 11, when I went with `11. ..Qb6`.

The engine didn't flag the blunder until move 15. But my idea that led to the mistake started there. My goal was to relieve myself of the pin from `Bg5`. I figured that move would put me down a pawn. But I thought my queen could pickup pawn on B2 later. This put my queen into dangerous territory. And after `15. Be3 Qc3 16. Rc1` ended the game. The pin allowed him to pick up the bishop. After that, it was a slow squeeze to end the game.

It was a good introduction back into the otb play. And my opponent was super nice, offering to do a post mortem.

You can see my full analysis with inline comments on [chess.com](https://www.chess.com/analysis/library/hm3c1rUDk)

### Round 2
I went into the secon round with more confidence. I had one game under my belt, and I had the white pieces.

Similar to the first game, things went smoothly through the opening. My oponent took a more passivie position fianchetto-ing the bishop. I was able to develop freely in the center.

<iframe id="9979939" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;height:30rem;border:none;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=9979939"></iframe><script>window.addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"9979939"===e['data']['id']&&document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>

The first mistakes were on move 7. I pushed `7. e5` to threaten the knight and open up the file. Hist mistake was dropping back the knight with `7. ..Nfd7`. I think he assumed I would take the pawn instead of the move `8. e6`. After going through the engine later I was happy to see it was the best move. He would be forced to take or let my pawn get to the 7th rank. And after I would have a check with the Bishop and it would be on a strong square.

From there the moves I had all felt natural. A couple moves I was proud of were `11. d4` and `17. Qd4+`. `11. d4` mostly because I feel like it adheared well to the opening principles. I expanded in the middle while simultaneously threatening the knight on `e5`. I also opened up the file for the black bishop. `17. Qd4+` because I knew after the bishop trade, it would allow me to get my queen on the h file for another check. The engine flagged it as the best move.

From there it was pretty standard for both sides. No major mistakes. I only have logged up to move 28 because I started getting low on time. but from there I started pushing pawns. We traded off rooks. Eventually I got to a point where he didn't see a way for me to get a promotion based on sacking my bishop and distracting his knight. I was up a queen at the end, but he made me prove the win by playing it out till the end.

Full analysis on [chess.com](https://www.chess.com/analysis/library/3CnxrFv97t?tab=review).

### Round 3
Round was one of the toughest of the event for me. Lack of sleep and not preparing enough food wise drained me.

Similar to the other games, my opening wa solid. I went with the Caro-Kann which has been my standard recently. 

<iframe id="9979943" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;border:none;height:30rem;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=9979943"></iframe><script>window.addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"9979943"===e['data']['id']&&document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(document.getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>

The first bump in the road was when my opponent played `10. Bxh7+`. I didn't see the sack. I contemplated taking the bishop, but after the queen would end up taking my bishop on `g4`, I wasn't able to calculate further as to see if there was a forced mate. So I took what I thought was a safer route, and just side stepped, and played down the pawn.

From there my opponent slowly kept pressing. I made a couple more mistakes. Luckily my opponent did as well when he took my knight at `21. Nxh6`. I think he would have been better off with `Bxf5`. This would have ruined my pawn structure. 

He made a second mistake when he sacked his bishop on `25. Bh7+`. I could tell his plan was to pick up the knight after it was pinned with his pawn. I don't think that he realized that I could push the g pawn, and be completely fine with my king using his pawn as a shield.

From there I was able to push my g pawn through. He had several opportunities to capture with his h pawn. He also opted for pushing his h pawn past my g pawn. He made one more mistake when trying to run with his king, by blocking the rook from threatening the g pawn. From there I was able to go `36. Kg2 g3`. From there I was able to get my pawn in, and I just had to much bearing down on the king. I was able to force a checkmate with the promotion.

Full game analysis on [chess.com](https://www.chess.com/analysis/library/2VdhxfadWn).

## Final Thoughts
I was super happy with my first day. I lost the first game, but it didn't go towards the tournament standings. So I was at a 3/3 going into the second day. All my oponents were super nice, so I was looking forward to going into day two. 

I will follow up with another post on day two soon.

A recap of my first tournament back into competitive play. This post will be about the first day of a two day event.

Chicago Chess Center 5th Jane Addam Day 1

Throughout 2021 & 2022, I played a lot of chess. My goal has always been improvement. Improvement translated to my chess.com rating. Based on that metric, I did pretty well. I boosted my rapid rating about 300 points from low 1300s to low 1600s. 

In 2023 I want to continue my improvement. But now I want to change how I define that improvement. I don't want to focus solely on rating. I want to make sure focus on specific aspects of my game. The assumption being that if I hit these goals, the rating increase will be a side effect. 

## Chess Improvement Goals
In the tail end of this year, I also started looking into the chess punks community and chess improvers. I have been trying to find the secret sauce to chess improvement. Especially for people in my rating range. 

After looking into a lot of options for study, I have found 4 things that continue to pop up as the best ways to improve.
- Solve Puzzles
- Study Chess Books
- Analyze Games
- Play OTB
These were all things I worked on in the past. But now I am going to set goals. And these goals would take precedence over anything else. 

Past Improvement Road Blocks
Looking over the past two years, I began feeling that my chess studies have been too scattered. I would work on puzzles, play games, work on chessable courses, look at the occasional book, and casually analyze games. This lack of focus on one area, and constant switching of contexts was holding back improvement. 

While the items I have chosen to focus on in the new year are items I worked on in the past, they weren't to their full potential. Analysis I had done was just using chess.com game review. Chess books I read through, but didn't setup the actual board. And the books I reviewed were probably outside my rating capabilities. So I figured this is the time to start focusing.

## New Year Game Plan
For 2023, I have structure and goals. Starting with the following:

### Solve Puzzles
I work on puzzles on chess.com. Made it to 2700 puzzle rating, and 45 in survival mode. I have a goal of hitting a new hitting a new survival high every month. So by the end of the year I should be at least a 52. I also want to go up 100 points on puzzle rating to be at 2800.

### Study Chess Books
Books I feel are something that can really improve my game. I had one book, Silman's How to Reasses Your Chess. I looked at it casually, but not with the focus needed to improve. I am going to start with A First Book of Morphy. 

I am hesitating to put a specific number on the number of books I need to finish. I don't want to burn through them just for the sake of it. But 3 I think is reasonable. And the ones I will focus on will hopefully improve my strategy and positional understanding. I will post reviews of the books as I go through them.

### Analyzing Games
Analysis is something I only started at the end of 2022. I played my first OTB tournament, and went into in depth analysis of all those games. I am going to start going through online games as well. Focusing on analysis of specific moves, as well as my thoughts throughout the game. I will post some game reviews on the blog to try to keep myself honest. 

### Playing Over the Board Games
I mentioned I played my first OTB tournament in 20 years this December. I had a great time, and want to keep it going. Playing over the board definitely has a different feel. I focused more on each game, and post game analysis showed I definitely blundered less. 

My goal for 2023 is to play 14 rated games. While 14 seems like a weird number, I currently have 11 rated games logged. Once I get to 25, my rating will no longer be provisional. I don't want to set a numeric goal for what that rating will be. But as always, the hope will be that it improves.

## Conclusion
So hopefully my new years goals aren't unreasonable. I will keep posting the progress to try and keep myself honest. But I am hoping 2023 will be a good year for my game. Let me know what you think of these goals, or feel free to share your goals!


2022 was a year of chess for me. I want to continue that into 2023, but in a more structured way. I figured the best way to start is with goals.

New Years Resolutions

I couldn't tell you how old I was when I first started playing chess. Like a lot of people, I learned from my dad. I don't have many memories of playing that early on. What I remember most from the early years is playing battle chess on our old IBM computer.

Around middle school, I started finding games at our local library. They had a chess club there that met on Tuesdays. Although calling it a chess club is generous. There were 4, sometimes 5 of us that met up to play. One other member was my best friend, who was also my age. The other two were in their 40s at the time, and much stronger players.

While this might not seem like a great environment for fostering chess, I wouldn't have the love of the game I do not if not for it. The adult players that came to that club, Al & Ray, loved to teach and explain the game. Not only that, they had a great sense of humor. Making the game fun is probably what kept us coming back to play.

## Playing in School

Al had two children that went to the same grade school I did. My friend and I asked him if he would be willing to help us start a chess club there. As a kid, I didn't realize how big of an ask that actually was. Looking back, it was super generous of him to donate his time. Through the club at school, we got introduced to competitive play. That's when I played in my first tournaments. I loved it. It was in one of those tournaments I got my first rating, a modest 852.

After grade school, life seemed to get in the way of the game. Unfortunately my high school didn't have a club. I would play the game here and there. A couple times in high school. A friend in college would play once in a while. And in recent years I would meet up once in a while with the old hometown club members to play.

## The Pandemic
As it did for most people, COVID changed my life drastically. I was fortunate enough to have a job that allowed me to work from home. But without the commute, the gym, and hanging out with friends less, I found myself with much more time.

I started seeing chatter of people online talking about playing chess. I played a couple times online as a kid. But at the time with slow internet speeds and low quality pages, it was hard to keep my attention. Chesscom was a whole new world. Not only for its great interface for gameplay. But also all its resources for learning more about the game.

From there, I also discovered chess on twitch. First by watching Hikaru. Then with events like pogchamps and the candidates tournament, I discovered something new. Chess wasn't just a game. It was a whole world in which every aspect I found entertaining. 

## Where I am Going From Here
I have played a lot online over the past two years. As part of getting immersed in the chess culture, I have learned of the #ChessPunks movement. If you haven't come across the hashtag, it's used by adult chess improvers when sharing their stories online. 

Like my situation, they were all introduced to the game at some point early on. Life got in the way, and now they are back. They share their goals and progress online, and try provide each other support.

I intend to do the same with this blog. While in the past I focused on just playing the game. I am moving forward with the commitment to measurable improve my game. I will be working on puzzles, studying master games, playing in otb (over the board) tournaments, and analyzing games. I hope to share what I learn here, and use sharing my story to help keep me on track.

I hope you find my story helpful. If you are a member of the #chesspunk community, feel free to reach out. One of the best parts of chess I have found so far is the community that comes with it. 

A brief introduction to my history with chess, as well as a bit of a preview of where I hope to go with this blog.

Chess

Analyzing Tournament Chess Perfomance Factors

Chicago Chess Center 5th Jane Addam Day 2

Chicago Chess Center 5th Jane Addam Day 1

New Years Resolutions

My History with Chess