1) Where are the weaknesses?
2) Which is the worst-placed piece?
3) What is my opponent's idea?

Here's the first quiz, Black to play at move 14.

click for larger view

He writes, <Here I was thinking: Just don't allow Bg5, just don't allow Bg5...The bishop is decreasing in value [....a4-a3 and Bb2-c1 had recently been played] and White has a serious problem with the c3-square; especially once I play ...b5-b4. It would be moronic to let him prevent me from bringing a knight to e4.

14....b4?

Ok, so I am a moron. It will now take forever to fight for the c3-square. This is how it goes; understanding what you need to do is not enough, you actually have to do it. Practice beats theory once again...

14....Ne4 15.Bf4 b4 and either ...Bb7 or ...Ba6 leads to at least even chances for Black.>

Lots of mistakes by both sides after that, all of which Aagaard recounts. The Q+opposite color bishops position reached at the end is a little better for White, but holdable, until 35....Qg7??.

Aagaard's final word: <Not pretty, but very instructive. Chess is far easier to understand than to play, so please do go through the exercises and get these simple things under control!>

With all respect, I disagree: reading this could only prove a worthwhile endeavour, especially (if I am not mistaken) working with young players as you do, who will come to value such lessons.

If this snippet is indicative of Aagaard's work as a whole, 'very good' seems an understatement. Wish something like this had been around in the mid 1970s, when I progressed from novice to average player.

<....understanding what you need to do is not enough, you actually have to do it....>

First in chess, now in poker: don't I know it, though I am far better at executing on a consistent basis when those spots present themselves as a poker player than I ever was on the 64 squares.

As that anonymous bit of graffiti once ran:

Brilliant !

Being shure about everything = understanding nothing.