Oddly enough, this chapter is the first one in this “guide” that actually attempts to do any real guiding. So far I’ve focused only on principles and explanations. But the knowledge of why you’re doing something often makes all the difference in getting yourself to do it and do it well.

To start constructing custom model games, start up a new lichess study. I’ve included relevant links in the tools section. Once in the study, turn on Stockfish analysis and set ‘Multiple Lines’ to five. I always find it really helpful to see the various lines that Stockfish is considering to see what the common ideas are across lines and how its eval drops with different options. Get to the opening position of the line for which you want to build a game.

You’ll be selecting each move both for the “Hero” side (the side you’re looking to emulate) and the “Villain” side (the side playing moves that you might have to deal with). There are different principles for how you go about selecting moves for each side.

Having made a lot of custom model games, and having spent a lot of time committing them to memory, I have developed a number of principles that should be used in making a good one. I know very well the issues that spring up from trying to learn a poorly-designed custom model game, and I want to help you to avoid them.

Principles for the Hero’s moves, in priority order:

1. They should be strong moves. Stockfish’s evaluation should be used heavily here, because Stockfish is stronger than any human - either you or the other people playing games without computer assistance. Stockfish eval isn’t the only factor you should use when choosing moves for your games, but it should be a really significant one. When Stockfish’s opinion differs from what the bulk of masters play, I have almost always benefited from figuring out why Stockfish prefers its choice. As a note, when there is a committal move of some sort, or when Stockfish’s move seems strange or different than what strong players play, then make sure you give the engine plenty of time to think it over - you don’t want a superficial Stockfish evaluation to become the reason you make a bad move choice for years to come.
2. They should adhere to clear plans. Sometimes, Stockfish likes to move pieces back and forth and - try as I might - even after looking at a position deeply the reasons are extremely obscure to me. In that event, I should not include the move in my model game. It is better to use a move I understand than one I don’t, even if the move I understand isn’t Stockfish’s first choice. Of course, the best situation is where I gain understanding and then include a move, but sometimes Stockfish seems a little befuddled by a position too. Don’t hard-code befuddlement into the games you’re learning.
3. They should work against a variety of your opponent’s plans. One of the downsides of using custom model games to prepare is that because they’re longer than standard opening lines, you often have to make do with fewer of them. As a result, you should try to learn ideas that have general application - they work in as wide a variety of lines as possible. It can be fun to learn some plan that completely busts a very particular line of your opponent’s play, but if it works only against that line and you’ll have to learn something else against every other line of play it can be relatively inefficient as opposed to learning a plan that works against most everything.
4. They should reach positions you like to play. You probably have some idea of positions you like to play, and you should honor that. These games are intended to be inspirational as much as they are intended to be instructive. You’re trying to be the best version of yourself, and that’s how the Hero side should play. Don’t let a small difference in Stockfish eval push you into positions you don’t like.
5. They should perform well in actual games. I haven’t talked about game databases so far, but in selecting opening moves they can be a useful indicator. You should prefer moves that have produced good results for the players who have played them - often that data reveals aspects of the move that might be invisible to Stockfish. For example, a move that isn’t quite as good objectively may lead to a position that is easy for a human to play. Of course, game databases stop being useful as a line gets longer, but you should use them for earlier moves as an indicator of what you should play.

For the Villain’s moves:

1. They should be moves you’re likely to see. Game databases should be used liberally here, both online and OTB games, and you should filter those databases for the rating range of players you’re likely to play. The principle here is simple - you’re not going to be able to prepare for every position, so select for the ones you’re most likely to see over the board. If you’re going to be playing 1400 players, don’t prepare for moves favored by top GMs - prepare for 1400 players. It’s here where off-the-shelf courses often fail - they’re built for GMs and IMs, but they don’t cover the positions you’ll reach against lower-rated players.
2. They should be good moves. In general, you want to prepare lines against challenging, well-played moves, as expressed by Stockfish eval and game database performance. It is usually the case that when an opponent deviates, you can use the ideas from your plans against optimal play to find a good option against a sub-optimal idea. It is more rarely the case that the reverse is true - that knowing optimal lines against sub-optimal moves will leave you well informed to find good moves against good play.
3. They should cover a range of different plans. It can sometimes be the case that an opponent might have a few radically different ways to treat a given position, that will require specific knowledge on your part to handle each one. Even if one is much more popular than the others, it can be useful to spend at least some of your training time on the less popular plans because they are so different. You’re trying to use your model games to give you ideas in relevant positions, but if there are specific positions you might reach that will require specific ideas then you should try to learn them. On the other hand, if you’re building a new line and it’s going to be extremely similar to a line you already have constructed, then maybe you shouldn’t spend the time to build and learn it.

In addition to selecting each move well, one of the key considerations is where to stop. Sometimes a game had a natural stopping point - it ended in mate or an easily winnable material advantage - but often I had to decide where exactly to cut the game off in an equal-ish position. There is some judgment that goes into this decision: longer games can show more ideas, but take longer to memorize and play over and so take valuable training time. In general I found that the key aspect was if the position was still showing ideas I found interesting or needed to better understand. Sometimes this meant cutting them off in the late middlegame, sometimes deep into the ending.

I’m planning to give examples here in the blog, where I build model games for specific openings using these principles. That may better show how these principles can be applied in practice, but hopefully the ideas behind these principles give you guidance to start on your own.