For several years, I’ve been touting about opening knowledge, and how it’s so important. I mean, what good is starting a chess game if you are going to lose the thing in the first ten moves anyhow? However, I also believe that *too* much opening study is wrong. It’s good to know the ideas behind each opening, and maybe a couple zaps and traps, but you should always be *playing* chess, instead of pounding out pre-determined lines.
Why, though? Because, if you just slap out the first ten moves of the opening you know so well, without thinking, you may miss slight errors or even blunders from the opposing camp. Instead, think about the chess game from move one, and you’ll find you win a lot more games, even if the moves you choose aren’t “book” lines. Many times, the book moves will be correct anyhow, but decide for yourself *why* they are correct, and you’ll have a much deeper understanding of each opening and the way they work.
Of course, if you are a big 1-minute fan, this credo may not work so well because you don’t have as much time to ponder each position. But in a long game, or even a blitz game, simply insta-moving pieces because it’s the way the opening is supposed to look could be a big mistake. After all, the name of the game is winning, and if you can win in the first few moves because of a blunder the other side makes, you’ve got to take advantage of that.
The first, and most important, thing for you to do is decide which opening formations fit best with your style. If you like long, positional grinds then gambit openings may not be best suited for you. But if you are an attacking player who likes sharp, unclear positions, you may find that positional openings may prove a little too boring for your particular tastes.
Second, you must determine the *ideas* behind the openings. Believe it or not, GMs are thinking about the endgame while they make their first ten moves. Moving certain pawns or developing certain pieces to different squares greatly affects how the endgame will turn out, and so they can steer toward openings that favor their entire game style, and not just play for cheapos to win a pawn by move twelve. Sometimes, pawns are more expensive than they seem to be at first.
My advice is to pick an opening and play it in slower games for a while. Lose a hell of a lot of battles with it, and note where you went wrong and right. Then, once you get a better feel for them and what their aims are, you can begin to implement them into blitz games or bullet games because there may be less “thinking” involved, and more rote memory while still playing sound, solid chess.
Openings are an important, integral part of the game of chess, but they are not the end-all-be-all. Just as much, if not more, time should be spent on tactics and endgame structures. A well-balanced chess player will be much better equipped to win games than the one who spends all their time on one certain aspect. That’s just the way it is.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Chess and Cheating
I have been an administrator, and not an entry-level one, on a chess site for years and years. I was fortunate enough to be able to work the computer abuse team, which has taught me a great deal about not only how to spot cheaters, but some of their reasons for doing so, as well. People are interesting. I’m a people person, and never just fry someone without getting the story first. I take it from there. As a side note, I actually knew and worked with the guy who used ear buds in the 2006 World Open, and we were all there rooting him on. Sad.
I’m highly schooled when it comes to computer engines, although my fire for them is burning out quickly. That doesn’t change the fact that I know what I’m doing, though, and I can spot a cheated game a mile away with one eye open, at least as long as it’s on the Net. For me, separating a pretty strong player from an engine cheater is almost as easy as looking down to see if my shoes match. No big deal. All day long.
Of course, the players at big tournaments cheat for monetary gain, with rating gain being an included bonus. We don’t really need to speculate much about them then, do we? Their intentions and goals are very clear, and what they do is and should be punishable by law. They are literally stealing. OTB cheaters are after cash – cold, hard, cash. Got it.
Rather, I’m speaking of the 1500-level player on your favorite playing site who begins using an engine. While it may seem obvious to us that he doesn’t want to lose and he wants to gain rating points and so he decides to cheat, that isn’t always the case. Of course, there’s almost always some of that mixed in, but the real, underlying reasons can be severely different from cheater to cheater. Let’s take a few examples.
John plays on chessisgreat.com (fictional site for our purposes) every day, and he studies when he has time, although his college courses and roommates and part-time job make it more than difficult to improve much at the game. And of course, there’s girls. John is rated 1990 on the website, and he knows for sure that were he allowed to buckle down and hit the books proper, he could surpass his goal of 2100. Because he cannot do that, and doesn’t see a time where he will be able to do that in the near future, he breaks out Chessmaster and begins to seek games against higher rated opponents. After a few wins, his rating climbs, and it becomes addicting. He finds that it is much easier to swindle points than it is to trudge through the mire, losing some and winning some, never making real headway.
Aaron, on the other hand, is a fifteen year-old latch-key-kid who loves chess, but is unsupervised from the hours of 3pm, when he gets home from school, to 7pm, when his parents return home from work. He also spends his afternoons on chessisgreat.com, and would love to improve but he has severe A.D.D., and reading books is super difficult for him, although he has a deep love for playing. He sees the games the Masters play and he wants to play just like them, but he just can’t seem to find it in him to do things the right way. So, out comes Fritz and off he goes, right to the top. He knows he isn’t learning anything and maybe he even knows he’ll be caught someday, but it’s worth seeing that 2,000+ rating behind his name. It makes him feel good on the Internet, which is basically his world because, well, because he’s fifteen and spends time playing chess. Some nice girl will like him, someday, but for now, it’s all about his kingdom, which lies just beyond the monitor that’s slowly rotting his brain and stealing his morals.
Bruce signs on to chessisgreat.com to play a specific buddy, whom he knows from the local chess club. Bruce cannot beat his buddy, and knows damn well that it’ll be a month of Sundays before he does. When the hammer hits the iron, he’s just simply tired of losing. So, he fires up Arena and uses an engine in a few of their battles. Hearing his friend tell him how much he’s improving and that he’s doing great is well worth the lie he has decided to live. When he gets beat badly at the club by that same friend, he can just say that he’s tired, or having an off day. Oh, what tangled lives we lead, when once we practice...
I have been busting people for cheating on the Net longer than I care to admit, and the fictitious cheaters above are just THREE examples as to reasons why someone would choose to not play their own games. Trust me, there are fifty-eleven others, and more waiting to come out of the woodwork. Just when I think I’ve heard them all, someone comes along with a new one.
The point to my long-winded post is that we simply do not know, not all the time, why someone does the things they do. That is, unless money is involved, and then pinpointing their motivations becomes a tad easier. Of course, some folks just want to cheat for the sake of cheating. Some of them actually enjoy maliciously taking the hard-earned points of others, and watching them become upset over it. Some folks want a big rating and they don’t care how they get it, and other people actually want to get caught, for one reason or another. Nothing is ever as it seems – trust me on that one.
I feel very strongly about cheating and chess. I loathe a cheater, and will never do so myself. Never have I, and never will I, cheat in a game of chess. You might find me with an ace up my sleeve at a family poker game, for kicks and giggles, but I’ll never shortchange the most beautiful game to ever grace the rock we call Earth. That you can bet on. Also, I will continue to bust players on the Internet who use software assistance, for as long as I’m able to spot their cheating asses. Will it solve anything? Nope. Cheating is here to stay, but I can play a small role in the prevention of it, maybe, and that’s what we all should do.
Here are some broad, very general tips on things to watch out for if you suspect your opponent is cheating on your favorite chess playing site:
1. big slow-game rating, tiny bullet or blitz rating. Not always a dead giveaway, but definitely an arrow pointing in that direction. Normal variations are 300 points or less. So, a 1500 bullet player with a standard rating of 1800 isn’t necessarily cause for alarm. However, an 1100 touting a 2300 standard rating should be looked into. Quickly. There are always exceptions. I see titled players regularly on the ICC with 1300 bullet ratings. Some people just don’t think that quickly, or operate well under time pressure. Needless to say, if that IM had more than 1-minute, he’d likely be able to outplay his opponents, and badly.
2. odd king shifts, when there doesn’t appear to be any attack on it. Engines love odd king shifts. For instance, if the engine wants to prepare, as white, for an f4 shove but sees that a queen or bishop could come out and harass it with a check, it may move its king to h1, just in case, whereas very few 1600 players on the Net are going to see that and prepare so thoroughly. Most players attack, not pre-defend. Watch those odd king shifts.
3. really strong, out of place looking pawn pushes, *especially* if they are sacrifices. Now, I’m not one to bad-mouth any chess player, as I feel we are all a part of a very cool thing, but really, what 1300 is going to sacrifice their d-pawn to make clearance for a brutal N outpost? Very, very few. An engine will, though. You betcha. Watch for really super slick pawn pushes, particularly in the middle and end game.
4. finally, and this one is very loose, watch for kingside pawn storms, especially when both players have castled on the same side. The reason being that an engine, even a weak one, will be able to see accurately over ten moves deep, and know if it’s safe to start shoving g and h pawns down its opponent’s throat. We as human players, however, have been (mostly) conditioned to *not* push pawns that are in front of our kings. It doesn’t feel natural, it feels risky and uncomfortable. Now, a real-life Expert or above player will surely launch pawn storms, but a 1400 isn’t going to if he or she wants to survive. Like I said, it’s a semi-weak sign but a sign nonetheless.
There are a ton of other things, but entire seminars can and are held on the subject of chess cheating. I feel that no matter what your motivations, if you cheat at a chess game, it says something about you as a person. If you’ll steal a dime, you’ll steal a quarter, type thing. Likely, there are other issues in that person’s life that will lead them to cheating at a chess game.
One of the best ways to keep the game of chess honest is just not to cheat. Don’t do it, under any circumstances, even if it’s a friendly sparring match with a good friend. Play the game, or else it starts to play you, and what fun is that? There is no “good feeling” or sense of accomplishment when we defeat a player using an engine. There just isn’t. As chess players, we win and lose and draw. That’s just the way it is. In order to truly improve however, we have to obey the rules. Nothing is gained by cheating, not in chess and not in anything else.
I’m highly schooled when it comes to computer engines, although my fire for them is burning out quickly. That doesn’t change the fact that I know what I’m doing, though, and I can spot a cheated game a mile away with one eye open, at least as long as it’s on the Net. For me, separating a pretty strong player from an engine cheater is almost as easy as looking down to see if my shoes match. No big deal. All day long.
Of course, the players at big tournaments cheat for monetary gain, with rating gain being an included bonus. We don’t really need to speculate much about them then, do we? Their intentions and goals are very clear, and what they do is and should be punishable by law. They are literally stealing. OTB cheaters are after cash – cold, hard, cash. Got it.
Rather, I’m speaking of the 1500-level player on your favorite playing site who begins using an engine. While it may seem obvious to us that he doesn’t want to lose and he wants to gain rating points and so he decides to cheat, that isn’t always the case. Of course, there’s almost always some of that mixed in, but the real, underlying reasons can be severely different from cheater to cheater. Let’s take a few examples.
John plays on chessisgreat.com (fictional site for our purposes) every day, and he studies when he has time, although his college courses and roommates and part-time job make it more than difficult to improve much at the game. And of course, there’s girls. John is rated 1990 on the website, and he knows for sure that were he allowed to buckle down and hit the books proper, he could surpass his goal of 2100. Because he cannot do that, and doesn’t see a time where he will be able to do that in the near future, he breaks out Chessmaster and begins to seek games against higher rated opponents. After a few wins, his rating climbs, and it becomes addicting. He finds that it is much easier to swindle points than it is to trudge through the mire, losing some and winning some, never making real headway.
Aaron, on the other hand, is a fifteen year-old latch-key-kid who loves chess, but is unsupervised from the hours of 3pm, when he gets home from school, to 7pm, when his parents return home from work. He also spends his afternoons on chessisgreat.com, and would love to improve but he has severe A.D.D., and reading books is super difficult for him, although he has a deep love for playing. He sees the games the Masters play and he wants to play just like them, but he just can’t seem to find it in him to do things the right way. So, out comes Fritz and off he goes, right to the top. He knows he isn’t learning anything and maybe he even knows he’ll be caught someday, but it’s worth seeing that 2,000+ rating behind his name. It makes him feel good on the Internet, which is basically his world because, well, because he’s fifteen and spends time playing chess. Some nice girl will like him, someday, but for now, it’s all about his kingdom, which lies just beyond the monitor that’s slowly rotting his brain and stealing his morals.
Bruce signs on to chessisgreat.com to play a specific buddy, whom he knows from the local chess club. Bruce cannot beat his buddy, and knows damn well that it’ll be a month of Sundays before he does. When the hammer hits the iron, he’s just simply tired of losing. So, he fires up Arena and uses an engine in a few of their battles. Hearing his friend tell him how much he’s improving and that he’s doing great is well worth the lie he has decided to live. When he gets beat badly at the club by that same friend, he can just say that he’s tired, or having an off day. Oh, what tangled lives we lead, when once we practice...
I have been busting people for cheating on the Net longer than I care to admit, and the fictitious cheaters above are just THREE examples as to reasons why someone would choose to not play their own games. Trust me, there are fifty-eleven others, and more waiting to come out of the woodwork. Just when I think I’ve heard them all, someone comes along with a new one.
The point to my long-winded post is that we simply do not know, not all the time, why someone does the things they do. That is, unless money is involved, and then pinpointing their motivations becomes a tad easier. Of course, some folks just want to cheat for the sake of cheating. Some of them actually enjoy maliciously taking the hard-earned points of others, and watching them become upset over it. Some folks want a big rating and they don’t care how they get it, and other people actually want to get caught, for one reason or another. Nothing is ever as it seems – trust me on that one.
I feel very strongly about cheating and chess. I loathe a cheater, and will never do so myself. Never have I, and never will I, cheat in a game of chess. You might find me with an ace up my sleeve at a family poker game, for kicks and giggles, but I’ll never shortchange the most beautiful game to ever grace the rock we call Earth. That you can bet on. Also, I will continue to bust players on the Internet who use software assistance, for as long as I’m able to spot their cheating asses. Will it solve anything? Nope. Cheating is here to stay, but I can play a small role in the prevention of it, maybe, and that’s what we all should do.
Here are some broad, very general tips on things to watch out for if you suspect your opponent is cheating on your favorite chess playing site:
1. big slow-game rating, tiny bullet or blitz rating. Not always a dead giveaway, but definitely an arrow pointing in that direction. Normal variations are 300 points or less. So, a 1500 bullet player with a standard rating of 1800 isn’t necessarily cause for alarm. However, an 1100 touting a 2300 standard rating should be looked into. Quickly. There are always exceptions. I see titled players regularly on the ICC with 1300 bullet ratings. Some people just don’t think that quickly, or operate well under time pressure. Needless to say, if that IM had more than 1-minute, he’d likely be able to outplay his opponents, and badly.
2. odd king shifts, when there doesn’t appear to be any attack on it. Engines love odd king shifts. For instance, if the engine wants to prepare, as white, for an f4 shove but sees that a queen or bishop could come out and harass it with a check, it may move its king to h1, just in case, whereas very few 1600 players on the Net are going to see that and prepare so thoroughly. Most players attack, not pre-defend. Watch those odd king shifts.
3. really strong, out of place looking pawn pushes, *especially* if they are sacrifices. Now, I’m not one to bad-mouth any chess player, as I feel we are all a part of a very cool thing, but really, what 1300 is going to sacrifice their d-pawn to make clearance for a brutal N outpost? Very, very few. An engine will, though. You betcha. Watch for really super slick pawn pushes, particularly in the middle and end game.
4. finally, and this one is very loose, watch for kingside pawn storms, especially when both players have castled on the same side. The reason being that an engine, even a weak one, will be able to see accurately over ten moves deep, and know if it’s safe to start shoving g and h pawns down its opponent’s throat. We as human players, however, have been (mostly) conditioned to *not* push pawns that are in front of our kings. It doesn’t feel natural, it feels risky and uncomfortable. Now, a real-life Expert or above player will surely launch pawn storms, but a 1400 isn’t going to if he or she wants to survive. Like I said, it’s a semi-weak sign but a sign nonetheless.
There are a ton of other things, but entire seminars can and are held on the subject of chess cheating. I feel that no matter what your motivations, if you cheat at a chess game, it says something about you as a person. If you’ll steal a dime, you’ll steal a quarter, type thing. Likely, there are other issues in that person’s life that will lead them to cheating at a chess game.
One of the best ways to keep the game of chess honest is just not to cheat. Don’t do it, under any circumstances, even if it’s a friendly sparring match with a good friend. Play the game, or else it starts to play you, and what fun is that? There is no “good feeling” or sense of accomplishment when we defeat a player using an engine. There just isn’t. As chess players, we win and lose and draw. That’s just the way it is. In order to truly improve however, we have to obey the rules. Nothing is gained by cheating, not in chess and not in anything else.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Will I Ever be a GM?
If you frequent chess forums and/or chess playing sites with any regularity, I’m sure you have heard this question asked a million times. Heck, maybe you’ve asked it yourself. The funny thing is, I’m not sure why it’s ever asked, really. The answer is almost always a resounding NO.
How do I know that those folks won’t ever become Grandmasters? It’s simple. If your actual chess rating is 2300 or 2400 (2500+ is GM level chess) and you have an actual shot at the Grandmaster title, you will not be on a forum asking how to gain 100 points. You’ll be studying and playing at tournaments. Instead, it’s always the 1100-1600 crowd that seems to ask questions like those. Of course, I’m not saying that every 1100 who has ever asked if he could become a Grandmaster hasn’t actually become one, but it’s like winning the lottery – your chances are really, really low.
The average USCF rating is 1391. *Average*. That means that a good portion of actual tournament players fall below that mark. It’s really intriguing to walk around some of the big tournaments that have hundreds of competitors. In Las Vegas, for instance, the tournaments are held in huge ballrooms, inside one of the big hotels. You walk past row after row after row of people who are intensely into their games. They are all playing the exact same game, which is chess. However, only the last five or six rows feature any players who are worth a damn. 90% of the room is filled with patzers, trying hard to make their way to one of those front rows.
A rating of 2,000 USCF makes you an official chess Expert. That alone is an awesome feat that very, very few chess players ever achieve. And yet, Experts still have 200 hard-to-earn points before they become a “lowly” Master with a 2,200 rating. The Master then has 300 points to climb through if he wants to get near a Grandmaster title. See what I’m getting at here? The 9th grade kid who finds he loves chess and has set himself a Grandmaster goal is going to find things out the hard way.
Of course, setting goals is never a bad thing. Don’t get me wrong here, I feel that goal-setting is very healthy, but only if they are actually attainable. Instead of announcing that you will stop at nothing to earn the Grandmaster title when you are rated 1550, maybe tell folks that 1800 is within view, and see if you can jump that hurdle. Once you crest the 1800 mark, you can start hitting the books and seriously consider shooting for Expert. If you continue to improve from there, Master may not be out of sight. But remember, the higher your rating the harder it is to improve on it, in general.
For example, if a 1400 rated player has taken a whole year off of tournament play to study and improve their chess, it may not be very difficult at all to fly through 300 points and acquire a rating of 1700. However, unless you are a super bright prodigy, improvement after that will prove to be slow and painful. Instead of setting unattainable goals, always bring you’re A-game to tournaments. That way, you are sure to get as far as you personally can. Wherever you plateau, if in fact you do, should be acceptable to you no matter if you secretly want to be a GM or not. We all secretly want to be GMs, it goes with the territory.
How do I know that those folks won’t ever become Grandmasters? It’s simple. If your actual chess rating is 2300 or 2400 (2500+ is GM level chess) and you have an actual shot at the Grandmaster title, you will not be on a forum asking how to gain 100 points. You’ll be studying and playing at tournaments. Instead, it’s always the 1100-1600 crowd that seems to ask questions like those. Of course, I’m not saying that every 1100 who has ever asked if he could become a Grandmaster hasn’t actually become one, but it’s like winning the lottery – your chances are really, really low.
The average USCF rating is 1391. *Average*. That means that a good portion of actual tournament players fall below that mark. It’s really intriguing to walk around some of the big tournaments that have hundreds of competitors. In Las Vegas, for instance, the tournaments are held in huge ballrooms, inside one of the big hotels. You walk past row after row after row of people who are intensely into their games. They are all playing the exact same game, which is chess. However, only the last five or six rows feature any players who are worth a damn. 90% of the room is filled with patzers, trying hard to make their way to one of those front rows.
A rating of 2,000 USCF makes you an official chess Expert. That alone is an awesome feat that very, very few chess players ever achieve. And yet, Experts still have 200 hard-to-earn points before they become a “lowly” Master with a 2,200 rating. The Master then has 300 points to climb through if he wants to get near a Grandmaster title. See what I’m getting at here? The 9th grade kid who finds he loves chess and has set himself a Grandmaster goal is going to find things out the hard way.
Of course, setting goals is never a bad thing. Don’t get me wrong here, I feel that goal-setting is very healthy, but only if they are actually attainable. Instead of announcing that you will stop at nothing to earn the Grandmaster title when you are rated 1550, maybe tell folks that 1800 is within view, and see if you can jump that hurdle. Once you crest the 1800 mark, you can start hitting the books and seriously consider shooting for Expert. If you continue to improve from there, Master may not be out of sight. But remember, the higher your rating the harder it is to improve on it, in general.
For example, if a 1400 rated player has taken a whole year off of tournament play to study and improve their chess, it may not be very difficult at all to fly through 300 points and acquire a rating of 1700. However, unless you are a super bright prodigy, improvement after that will prove to be slow and painful. Instead of setting unattainable goals, always bring you’re A-game to tournaments. That way, you are sure to get as far as you personally can. Wherever you plateau, if in fact you do, should be acceptable to you no matter if you secretly want to be a GM or not. We all secretly want to be GMs, it goes with the territory.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Time Management in Chess
So, something has confused me since, well, since I began playing chess, I guess. Why is it that some folks, especially online, play long or “standard” games as if they are 3/0 or less? If I had a quarter for every time I checkmated someone who had ten minutes more on their clock than I did, I would be able to buy a golden chess set. Let’s discuss some of the drawbacks of moving fast in slow games.
No time to plan. Well, I guess it’s no secret that chess involves planning and strategy. In fact, that’s the entire point of the game. So, if we have (for example) twenty-minutes on the clock to begin with, and have only used two of them when we resign or get checkmated, while our opponent has used twelve minutes, we simply must recognize that something is wrong. The average player simply cannot create sound plans, attacks, and defenses when they bang out thirty moves in under three minutes. Not going to happen. In those instances, the player who uses more time almost always wins.
Reduced benefits. Can you imagine if our parents only grounded us for three minutes every time we were caught doing something horrible? Would your lessons be learned, or would the lesson be that it’s really okay to be bad? If you sign up for a longer game, be prepared to use most or all of your time. Losing game after game because we moved too fast isn’t going to teach us anything, and so there is no way to improve. If you get into a bad position, *play* that position. Make it hurt a little. Chances are, you’ll remember it the next time you see it and be more careful. Likewise, if you have the winning position, *look* for the fastest win. Just because you have three pieces and your opponent only has a king doesn’t mean you start giving mindless checks, waiting for the mate. If there is time on your clock, work it out – heck, that’s half the fun, isn’t it?
Rating never changes. Take the average fast-moving 1450 rated standard player on the Internet. He is obviously inferior to a 1900 player, but will he beat that player occasionally, even though he’s moving fast? Sure. It happens. So he’ll gain maybe 40 points for that scalp. But then, he loses the next five because he keeps playing lightning fast, and his 40 points are gone. Then he’ll take out a couple unwitting 1600s and gain them back, only to lose them again in the next four games or so. The *only* way that rating is ever going to climb (or even fall) dramatically is if we take our time and commit ourselves to the game. It’s quite the roller-coaster ride, trust me.
It just doesn’t make sense. If you want to use two minutes to make thirty moves, why aren’t you playing three-minute chess? Although it’s kinda funny and seems to be obvious, I’m being quite serious. If instant-moving and “game after game” is your goal, why aren’t you playing bullet or very fast blitz games? Honestly, you have a better chance of rating increases at those time limits if instant-moving is your preference. Because a good standard player is going to scalp you 9 of 10 games. That’s just the way it is. Nobody who has reached expert-level ratings (2000 or above) ever got there by moving instantly in any portion of the game. They may also be good blitz or bullet players, but a real Expert will take his or her time in a long game. Take my word on that.
No time to plan. Well, I guess it’s no secret that chess involves planning and strategy. In fact, that’s the entire point of the game. So, if we have (for example) twenty-minutes on the clock to begin with, and have only used two of them when we resign or get checkmated, while our opponent has used twelve minutes, we simply must recognize that something is wrong. The average player simply cannot create sound plans, attacks, and defenses when they bang out thirty moves in under three minutes. Not going to happen. In those instances, the player who uses more time almost always wins.
Reduced benefits. Can you imagine if our parents only grounded us for three minutes every time we were caught doing something horrible? Would your lessons be learned, or would the lesson be that it’s really okay to be bad? If you sign up for a longer game, be prepared to use most or all of your time. Losing game after game because we moved too fast isn’t going to teach us anything, and so there is no way to improve. If you get into a bad position, *play* that position. Make it hurt a little. Chances are, you’ll remember it the next time you see it and be more careful. Likewise, if you have the winning position, *look* for the fastest win. Just because you have three pieces and your opponent only has a king doesn’t mean you start giving mindless checks, waiting for the mate. If there is time on your clock, work it out – heck, that’s half the fun, isn’t it?
Rating never changes. Take the average fast-moving 1450 rated standard player on the Internet. He is obviously inferior to a 1900 player, but will he beat that player occasionally, even though he’s moving fast? Sure. It happens. So he’ll gain maybe 40 points for that scalp. But then, he loses the next five because he keeps playing lightning fast, and his 40 points are gone. Then he’ll take out a couple unwitting 1600s and gain them back, only to lose them again in the next four games or so. The *only* way that rating is ever going to climb (or even fall) dramatically is if we take our time and commit ourselves to the game. It’s quite the roller-coaster ride, trust me.
It just doesn’t make sense. If you want to use two minutes to make thirty moves, why aren’t you playing three-minute chess? Although it’s kinda funny and seems to be obvious, I’m being quite serious. If instant-moving and “game after game” is your goal, why aren’t you playing bullet or very fast blitz games? Honestly, you have a better chance of rating increases at those time limits if instant-moving is your preference. Because a good standard player is going to scalp you 9 of 10 games. That’s just the way it is. Nobody who has reached expert-level ratings (2000 or above) ever got there by moving instantly in any portion of the game. They may also be good blitz or bullet players, but a real Expert will take his or her time in a long game. Take my word on that.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Blitz Tie-Breaks
I’d like to talk a bit about the current setup of some of the major tournaments. I’m talking about the big ones where the field is all 2600+ Grandmasters competing. While they definitely provide great competition and some pretty intense games, I’m specifically having a problem with some of the tie-breaks. Let me clarify.
Imagine a tournament with a field of ten GMs. The time control is longer, say game in two hours with a sudden-death of sixty-minutes after time control is reached. That means that if both players use a lot of time and approach 0:00 on the clocks, the game could end up being a grueling six-hour slug fest. That’s real chess, not this 15-minute “standard” crap that is so popular on the Internet. But I digress.
So, after days and days of battling, two of the GMs tie for first. The rules of the tournament say that any ties will be dealt with using a tie-break system. Sounds fair enough, right? Maybe not. The problem with the “tie-break” is that it is sometimes done using BLITZ games! Now, if this makes sense to you please, leave a comment, because it surely doesn’t make much to me.
I regularly see IMs and even GMs on the ICC who are rated 1400 or below in bullet and not much higher in their blitz ratings. Why? Some folks, even if they are past Master level by a few hundred points, just simply aren’t good at the fast games. After all, they didn’t get their titles playing 1-minute chess. They achieved them in the grueling six-hour slug fests mentioned earlier. Of course, some reach insane rating levels, even at one-minute chess, but others don’t work well under that kind of time pressure.
So, my question is this: How in the world is it fair to have two very prominent GMs tie in a quality, long time-controlled tournament and then have the whole shebang decided with five-minute chess? That’s like having a tie at a NASCAR race decided by each vehicle’s 60-foot launch times. It isn’t a drag race, it’s a long and dangerous battle of stamina. So the 60-foot launch times mean literally nothing in that genre. It’s the same, I believe, between classic time controls and blitz chess. No difference.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel that’s a fair and competent way to decide a classical time-controlled tournament? How would *you* feel if you had to do the same? In my opinion, blitz chess has no place in a tournament like that. A blitz tournament is fine, and that’s a whole other animal. I bet contestants who share first at the end of a 5-minute tournament aren’t made to play a 90-minute game to break the tie. I’m just sayin’.
Imagine a tournament with a field of ten GMs. The time control is longer, say game in two hours with a sudden-death of sixty-minutes after time control is reached. That means that if both players use a lot of time and approach 0:00 on the clocks, the game could end up being a grueling six-hour slug fest. That’s real chess, not this 15-minute “standard” crap that is so popular on the Internet. But I digress.
So, after days and days of battling, two of the GMs tie for first. The rules of the tournament say that any ties will be dealt with using a tie-break system. Sounds fair enough, right? Maybe not. The problem with the “tie-break” is that it is sometimes done using BLITZ games! Now, if this makes sense to you please, leave a comment, because it surely doesn’t make much to me.
I regularly see IMs and even GMs on the ICC who are rated 1400 or below in bullet and not much higher in their blitz ratings. Why? Some folks, even if they are past Master level by a few hundred points, just simply aren’t good at the fast games. After all, they didn’t get their titles playing 1-minute chess. They achieved them in the grueling six-hour slug fests mentioned earlier. Of course, some reach insane rating levels, even at one-minute chess, but others don’t work well under that kind of time pressure.
So, my question is this: How in the world is it fair to have two very prominent GMs tie in a quality, long time-controlled tournament and then have the whole shebang decided with five-minute chess? That’s like having a tie at a NASCAR race decided by each vehicle’s 60-foot launch times. It isn’t a drag race, it’s a long and dangerous battle of stamina. So the 60-foot launch times mean literally nothing in that genre. It’s the same, I believe, between classic time controls and blitz chess. No difference.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel that’s a fair and competent way to decide a classical time-controlled tournament? How would *you* feel if you had to do the same? In my opinion, blitz chess has no place in a tournament like that. A blitz tournament is fine, and that’s a whole other animal. I bet contestants who share first at the end of a 5-minute tournament aren’t made to play a 90-minute game to break the tie. I’m just sayin’.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Universal Bullet Chess Openings
I know many of us “chess” players are vehemently against using the premove function on Internet chess sites because technically, it goes against everything we have ever learned about the game. Think, take note of all threats and checks, form a plan, move only when you are sure, etcetera etcetera. However, in bullet (1-minute chess), premove is not only an option but a way of survival. Sure, there are probably some extremely quick and accurate players out there who don’t use it, but for the rest of us, it’s an essential part of wicked-fast chess.
*What is premove?*
Premove is when it isn’t your turn, but you make a move on the board anyhow. The server acknowledges that you’d like the selected move to be your choice, no matter what the opponent does. So, after your opponent makes his or her move, the server interjects your move instantaneously, regardless of position or safety. So, as you can see, the risk involved is huge, but sometimes it pays off. Other times, you drop big material or get mated in one. That’s the adrenaline rush of bullet or lightning chess.
I was speaking with GM Nigel Davies the other day about a line for black that he feels is good in any circumstance. In short, he likes ...e6...d5...c5 – no matter what white plays! Yes, it’s a universal line that is virtually impossible to go wrong with. Because it can be played against anything white opens with and the positions reached are largely similar, I believe it is a great bullet opening for black to “premove” with. As you get more and more comfortable with it, the lines will become second nature and you’ll find you are winning a lot more games than you are losing.
If white plays 1. e4 of course, the line becomes a French Defense. If they play 1. d4, the line becomes a QGD more often than not. If white goes 1. c4, the position is likely to become the same as if he’d played 1. d4. If he goes hypermodern and plays 1. Nf3 or 1. b3, for instance, black is totally safe and is already off to a good start.
*Can white do the same?*
In short – yes. He can mirror those moves by playing 1. e3 2. d4 3. c4 (Van’t Kruijs opening) and likely have a very good game. Although it isn’t the most aggressive opening available, it is sure to keep white safe from cheapos and such right out of the opening. Do I employ these lines myself? Yes. Not every time, but many times I do. It always leads to a fun game where I’m slightly ahead on the clock by the fifth move alone, which is a huge plus in bullet chess. After that, as the BeeGees said, it’s just “Stayin’ Alive”.
*What is premove?*
Premove is when it isn’t your turn, but you make a move on the board anyhow. The server acknowledges that you’d like the selected move to be your choice, no matter what the opponent does. So, after your opponent makes his or her move, the server interjects your move instantaneously, regardless of position or safety. So, as you can see, the risk involved is huge, but sometimes it pays off. Other times, you drop big material or get mated in one. That’s the adrenaline rush of bullet or lightning chess.
I was speaking with GM Nigel Davies the other day about a line for black that he feels is good in any circumstance. In short, he likes ...e6...d5...c5 – no matter what white plays! Yes, it’s a universal line that is virtually impossible to go wrong with. Because it can be played against anything white opens with and the positions reached are largely similar, I believe it is a great bullet opening for black to “premove” with. As you get more and more comfortable with it, the lines will become second nature and you’ll find you are winning a lot more games than you are losing.
If white plays 1. e4 of course, the line becomes a French Defense. If they play 1. d4, the line becomes a QGD more often than not. If white goes 1. c4, the position is likely to become the same as if he’d played 1. d4. If he goes hypermodern and plays 1. Nf3 or 1. b3, for instance, black is totally safe and is already off to a good start.
*Can white do the same?*
In short – yes. He can mirror those moves by playing 1. e3 2. d4 3. c4 (Van’t Kruijs opening) and likely have a very good game. Although it isn’t the most aggressive opening available, it is sure to keep white safe from cheapos and such right out of the opening. Do I employ these lines myself? Yes. Not every time, but many times I do. It always leads to a fun game where I’m slightly ahead on the clock by the fifth move alone, which is a huge plus in bullet chess. After that, as the BeeGees said, it’s just “Stayin’ Alive”.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Trashy Chess Sets
Some of you readers surely play at the local chess club. Maybe you play at two or three. Or maybe you play at tournaments, be them great or small. Either way, you have seen the guy I’m going to describe in this post. Or maybe, you *are* the guy in this post. Whatever the case, this needs to be said.
I take pride in my chess stuff. It’s just something I do. I don’t expect everyone to do the same, but that still does not make me understand it when they don’t. To me, chess is a beautiful and romantic game, full of history and charm. I am honored to call myself a chess player, and moving a solid, weighted rook across a roll-up mat and then thumping it down slightly on a square thrills me. It’s just full of cool.
Then there’s that guy. You know the one. He’s usually middle-aged or older and has zero pride in his equipment. If he brings a clock at all, it’s a ten-dollar analog job that saw its best days in the ‘80s somewhere. His vinyl mat is either rolled-up backward so that the ends and sides curl up, or he has literally folded into fours, causing pieces and pawns along the center ranks and files to list badly and sometimes even fall over. The mat is usually very dirty, and the pieces are the cheap non-weighted plastic ones that can be picked up for a couple of bucks almost anywhere. The kind with a hollow bottom and no felt. And the whole shebang is brought into the club inside a handy grocery bag. What? Really?
The gentleman has obviously been playing chess for years and years, and yet he has never felt the urge to upgrade his equipment, or even to take care of the gear he has. This boggles me, and always has. I simply cannot believe that a lover of the game would even own chess equipment like that, much less showcase it for anyone and everyone to see. It really isn’t hard to acquire a decent setup.
My first set was bought used, from a gentleman at the club for $15.00. It consisted of the big, heavy yellow and white pieces with a roll-up vinyl mat and a green carrying bag. It was very simple, but it worked. I got a Chronos digital clock for my birthday and my ensemble was complete. Chronos clocks are very expensive, but competitive models can be found for much less. $30-$40 can get you a fine digital clock, depending on where you look.
Each week before I went to the club I’d spread out my board and give it a once-over with a damp cloth, as well as inspect my pieces and make sure my clock had good batteries. Many times we’d play in restaurants and naturally, the board would become dirty or sticky. Although my mat and pieces were old, they looked very presentable. I really didn’t see it as a choice; the set was well-taken-care-of, no matter what.
Over the years I have acquired a lot more chess equipment, but I have never paid much for any of it. A few years ago I bought a couple plastic sets that look really nice. Not as heavy as my first set, but weighted all the same. One set had black and tan pieces, and the other were red and white, both identical make and model. I found that I could mix and match them and go for weeks without playing with the same variation twice. It made for good conversation and they were fun to play with.
Then I went looking for a nice wooden set that I could take to tournaments. I finally found one online for a steal. I believe I paid $18.00 for the set, and it normally sold for around $70.00. I snatched that up in a heartbeat and they look just gorgeous. Every set I have purchased after my first one has had four queens, a feature I really like. They make five-minute blitz games at the club a lot easier.
So, let’s just assume, for argument’s sake, that I had gone with a $40.00 clock instead of the Chronos. Amazon has the exact same triple-weighted yellow and black chess set that I have for $26.95, and it comes with a brand-new green and white mat. Shipping is free. Add in the clock and we have a grand total of $56.95 for a really solid, great-looking chess set that can be used for a lifetime.
If I decided to purchase that setup, I would only have to set aside a tad over $14.00 a month for four months. Take out the clock and it’s $10.00 a month for three months. Now, money is tight for everyone and I understand that, but there is no way I can be convinced that in the last ten years these cats couldn’t have saved ten or fifteen bucks a month for a few months and puarchaed a quality set they can be proud of.
And so, week after week and year after year, they bring their sorry-looking, filthy and dilapidated beginner sets and analog clocks that keep questionable time at best. They may as well not even bring their clocks, because they are shortly replaced by someone’s digital unit anyhow. In fact, at tournaments, someone with a digital clock can force it to be used over an analog. Can’t beat that accuracy.
In my opinion, if you are going to actively play chess, whether it’s in a club or a tournament scenario, you should think about getting a set and clock that is both nice to look at and that folks want to play on. Even if your income is severely limited, you could still buy quality gear inside of a year. A game with so much rich history and possibilities really deserves better than a grungy, crooked, featherweight children’s set carried around in a grocery bag. If the set is nostalgic and has sentimental value to you, at least take some cleaning solution and a rag to it. I’m just sayin’.
I take pride in my chess stuff. It’s just something I do. I don’t expect everyone to do the same, but that still does not make me understand it when they don’t. To me, chess is a beautiful and romantic game, full of history and charm. I am honored to call myself a chess player, and moving a solid, weighted rook across a roll-up mat and then thumping it down slightly on a square thrills me. It’s just full of cool.
Then there’s that guy. You know the one. He’s usually middle-aged or older and has zero pride in his equipment. If he brings a clock at all, it’s a ten-dollar analog job that saw its best days in the ‘80s somewhere. His vinyl mat is either rolled-up backward so that the ends and sides curl up, or he has literally folded into fours, causing pieces and pawns along the center ranks and files to list badly and sometimes even fall over. The mat is usually very dirty, and the pieces are the cheap non-weighted plastic ones that can be picked up for a couple of bucks almost anywhere. The kind with a hollow bottom and no felt. And the whole shebang is brought into the club inside a handy grocery bag. What? Really?
The gentleman has obviously been playing chess for years and years, and yet he has never felt the urge to upgrade his equipment, or even to take care of the gear he has. This boggles me, and always has. I simply cannot believe that a lover of the game would even own chess equipment like that, much less showcase it for anyone and everyone to see. It really isn’t hard to acquire a decent setup.
My first set was bought used, from a gentleman at the club for $15.00. It consisted of the big, heavy yellow and white pieces with a roll-up vinyl mat and a green carrying bag. It was very simple, but it worked. I got a Chronos digital clock for my birthday and my ensemble was complete. Chronos clocks are very expensive, but competitive models can be found for much less. $30-$40 can get you a fine digital clock, depending on where you look.
Each week before I went to the club I’d spread out my board and give it a once-over with a damp cloth, as well as inspect my pieces and make sure my clock had good batteries. Many times we’d play in restaurants and naturally, the board would become dirty or sticky. Although my mat and pieces were old, they looked very presentable. I really didn’t see it as a choice; the set was well-taken-care-of, no matter what.
Over the years I have acquired a lot more chess equipment, but I have never paid much for any of it. A few years ago I bought a couple plastic sets that look really nice. Not as heavy as my first set, but weighted all the same. One set had black and tan pieces, and the other were red and white, both identical make and model. I found that I could mix and match them and go for weeks without playing with the same variation twice. It made for good conversation and they were fun to play with.
Then I went looking for a nice wooden set that I could take to tournaments. I finally found one online for a steal. I believe I paid $18.00 for the set, and it normally sold for around $70.00. I snatched that up in a heartbeat and they look just gorgeous. Every set I have purchased after my first one has had four queens, a feature I really like. They make five-minute blitz games at the club a lot easier.
So, let’s just assume, for argument’s sake, that I had gone with a $40.00 clock instead of the Chronos. Amazon has the exact same triple-weighted yellow and black chess set that I have for $26.95, and it comes with a brand-new green and white mat. Shipping is free. Add in the clock and we have a grand total of $56.95 for a really solid, great-looking chess set that can be used for a lifetime.
If I decided to purchase that setup, I would only have to set aside a tad over $14.00 a month for four months. Take out the clock and it’s $10.00 a month for three months. Now, money is tight for everyone and I understand that, but there is no way I can be convinced that in the last ten years these cats couldn’t have saved ten or fifteen bucks a month for a few months and puarchaed a quality set they can be proud of.
And so, week after week and year after year, they bring their sorry-looking, filthy and dilapidated beginner sets and analog clocks that keep questionable time at best. They may as well not even bring their clocks, because they are shortly replaced by someone’s digital unit anyhow. In fact, at tournaments, someone with a digital clock can force it to be used over an analog. Can’t beat that accuracy.
In my opinion, if you are going to actively play chess, whether it’s in a club or a tournament scenario, you should think about getting a set and clock that is both nice to look at and that folks want to play on. Even if your income is severely limited, you could still buy quality gear inside of a year. A game with so much rich history and possibilities really deserves better than a grungy, crooked, featherweight children’s set carried around in a grocery bag. If the set is nostalgic and has sentimental value to you, at least take some cleaning solution and a rag to it. I’m just sayin’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)