I am very highly involved in the chess community. From forums to game sites to news to local clubs and tourneys – I’ve been there, done that. In my years of chess pupilage, I have found a strange phenomenon to be true: Most newcomers to the game don’t actually want to learn it. They want to be handed knowledge and instantly become titled.
I suppose it’s the same with any facet of life, really. Novice welders want to work for the Union and make big money; a kid who just chucked his training wheels yesterday wants to race on the BMX track; the guy who graduates with a computer tech degree wants $100k a year immediately. No messing around. No blood, sweat, and tears. Just gimmie dat.
Well, it doesn’t work like that, friends and neighbors. If I had a nickel for every 1100-rated player who I’ve seen ask what it takes to become GM, I would have several thousand dollars by now. If I had a nickel for every 1100-rated player who has asked what books they should buy, I could probably retire. Are either of those questions bad, necessarily? Nope. The problem is that while it’s okay to dream and have a goal and wonder if we are studying the game properly, more important is to simply act. Do it.
Folks, there IS no magic formula to move you from complete novice to chess master in a few months. There is no secret lineup of specific books and videos you can watch that will improve your rating and skill level overnight. As a beginner, it’s far more important to soak up anything you can get your hands on about the game. Do you risk buying books that don’t specifically work for you? Yes. Do you run that same risk if five masters tell you the books they most love and recommend? Of course. What works for one may not work for another.
In our society of instant gratification, I see that chess is no different. Of course, I’m not saying that EVERY low-rated player who wonders what books to buy has the same attitude, because many of them don’t. For those of you who are actually, truly wondering how to improve, here are a few tried-and-true methods:
· PLAY. Not blitz, either; play chess. Play nice, long games, and then *really* go over them afterward. Losing or winning a game that you didn’t quite understand, and then just moving onto the next game, will not help you in the least. It won’t. Figure out WHY you won or lost. Figure out which blunder(s) were made during the game that conceded it to the other player. Do folks want to do this? Not many of them. Every time you play a game, whether you win or lose, you write a little part of a chess book: your own. Study it.
· Hire a chess coach. Hey, I know that “free” sounds better than spending money, but it’s one of the fastest ways to improve. Just about every IM and above has had some sort of coaching along the way. Probably most 2200s, too. You can read all the books and ask all the questions online you want, but without knowing what YOU, specifically, are doing right and wrong, improvement comes slow and hard.
· Read, read, read. Osmosis isn’t for people. Simply buying chess books, reading the first five pages of them, and then plopping them on the shelf isn’t going to do you any good. Read the damn things. Over and over, if you have to. I personally have no secret desire or expectation of becoming a master, so I’m not in the same position as the new players who want to dominate the world. I enjoy playing the game and picking up bits of information here and there which may improve it. Chess is still fun for me.
· Finally, *listen* to stronger players who try to help you. If you are a 1400 player and get free advice from a 2000 that you do not agree with, simply thank him for his time and move on. But that guy isn’t 2000 for no reason; he may know a thing or two about studying, preparation, openings, endings, and tactics. If you aren’t even willing to listen to answers, it may be best not to ask the question in the first place. Really.
Anyhow, I see I’m going on and on here, but I felt the issue needed to be addressed. Trust me, here, if you aren’t willing to put in a TON of work and time, chess greatness isn’t in your future. It just isn’t. If you want to play casual blitz, then do so! Just admit that freely, and accept it. There is nothing in the world wrong with doing so. But don’t play exclusively five-minute chess and then ask a strong player how to improve. He’ll simply tell you that you are doing it wrong, and that riles people up. Just blitz it, baby!
Also, gather all the information you can on which books are best to study, and then don’t buy any of them. That is what probably happens nine of ten times, anyhow. Taking time away from strong players who are willing to help, and then not acting on any of the advice, seems to be the new trend. Go for it!
Also, ask questions in forums like, “Who was better, Fischer or Kasparov?” which will net you some really valuable information. Another one that can really help you is, “Who was the best player of all time?” That one always produces nice, calm replies that can really help your game.
See where I’m going with this? Do it or don’t, it’s completely up to you.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Grandmaster vs. Super GM
Recently, there was a discussion on a chess forum I’m part of about GMs versus Super GMs. One beginner thought that a GM was a GM, and they were all pretty much equal. They aren’t, and that’s a fact. Sure, a GM might be able to score a draw or even a win against a Super GM here and there, but in a match, the “regular” 2500 GM stands no chance. None whatsoever. But why?
You may say to yourself, “It’s only 200 points difference, and I’ve seen 1400s beat 1600s, so the 2500 definitely has chances. Right?” Well, let me put it like this: To rise from 1400 to 1600, all it takes is practice, a little opening and endgame knowledge, and some tactics training. Those 200 points aren’t very difficult to gain for most average players.
At the top level though, rising from 2500 to 2700 is a ridiculously long trip. Consider this: The 2500 GM is a [I]grand master[/I] at the game of chess. He knows everything there is to know about the game, he’s seen every type of attack and defense come and go, and he is part of the chess elite. So, how come he can’t beat 2700s? If I knew that, I’d be rated higher than I am.
I read an interview once with a GM (I can’t remember which one, and it irks me, but he was in the 2650 Elo range) where he was asked what separated him from a 2300 rated FIDE master. His answer? “2300s do not understand chess.”
What? That statement hit me pretty hard at the time, for two reasons: Firstly, I cannot imagine being rated 2300 in the first place, much less 2600. Second, and most important, was that the GM was probably telling the truth. If that isn’t awe-inspiring, I don’t know what is.
So, in the same light, might the 2700 GM say the same thing about a 2500 GM? Maybe. Board vision, calculation ability, sheer experience – all these things come into play at the top level. I do not believe that just anyone can train hard and become a GM, much less a Super GM. I think you either have it, or you don’t. I imagine that most everyone who loves playing the piano would also love to become a famous concert pianist. However, it just isn’t in the cards for everyone. On top of hard work, dedication, and love for what you do, an exceptional amount of talent must be present. That’s what I believe, anyhow.
Those of you who are members of the ICC and have watched Hikaru Nakamura blow other GMs off the board in one-minute chess, over and over, know what I mean. If study time alone could bring that kind of power, his opponents would have it all over him because he’s just a kid. It isn’t just study and dedication, though; not all of it. That kid is talented, and there is no doubt in my mind about that.
You may say to yourself, “It’s only 200 points difference, and I’ve seen 1400s beat 1600s, so the 2500 definitely has chances. Right?” Well, let me put it like this: To rise from 1400 to 1600, all it takes is practice, a little opening and endgame knowledge, and some tactics training. Those 200 points aren’t very difficult to gain for most average players.
At the top level though, rising from 2500 to 2700 is a ridiculously long trip. Consider this: The 2500 GM is a [I]grand master[/I] at the game of chess. He knows everything there is to know about the game, he’s seen every type of attack and defense come and go, and he is part of the chess elite. So, how come he can’t beat 2700s? If I knew that, I’d be rated higher than I am.
I read an interview once with a GM (I can’t remember which one, and it irks me, but he was in the 2650 Elo range) where he was asked what separated him from a 2300 rated FIDE master. His answer? “2300s do not understand chess.”
What? That statement hit me pretty hard at the time, for two reasons: Firstly, I cannot imagine being rated 2300 in the first place, much less 2600. Second, and most important, was that the GM was probably telling the truth. If that isn’t awe-inspiring, I don’t know what is.
So, in the same light, might the 2700 GM say the same thing about a 2500 GM? Maybe. Board vision, calculation ability, sheer experience – all these things come into play at the top level. I do not believe that just anyone can train hard and become a GM, much less a Super GM. I think you either have it, or you don’t. I imagine that most everyone who loves playing the piano would also love to become a famous concert pianist. However, it just isn’t in the cards for everyone. On top of hard work, dedication, and love for what you do, an exceptional amount of talent must be present. That’s what I believe, anyhow.
Those of you who are members of the ICC and have watched Hikaru Nakamura blow other GMs off the board in one-minute chess, over and over, know what I mean. If study time alone could bring that kind of power, his opponents would have it all over him because he’s just a kid. It isn’t just study and dedication, though; not all of it. That kid is talented, and there is no doubt in my mind about that.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Three things beginners do wrong
I have heard it asked thousands of times, both in forums and on gaming sites, “What should I study? My game never improves!” Well, it might not be an issue of study or lack thereof at all. It might just be bad habits rearing their ugly heads, time and again.
Moving too fast
So many times I see beginners just pounding out opening moves, not taking more than a second to ponder what they are doing each turn. How do they wish to improve their game if they don’t even care where they place their pieces during one of the most crucial parts? Stay away from bullet chess. It creates bad habits in long games. Also, don’t just emulate the moves of strong players. They make those moves for a reason, and they know them. If you are just copying their setups, then you don’t know the reasons. Think good and hard before each move, no matter what stage of the game. Chess is about calculation. If you want fast-paced action, play Doom.
No plan
If you reach a certain part of the game and just move your pieces around aimlessly, you are doing it wrong. Each and every move, formulate a plan, even if it’s a bad one. At least *know* why you are making your moves. If the game is lost and you are playing on, you should still try and find the best moves available to you. Many a comeback has been had in just that manner. Know which squares you control, keep your eye out for tactics, and try not to blunder too badly. That’s the name of the game.
Playing lines with tons of theory
This may seem like a silly one, but I believe it to be true. Take this, for instance: A 1300 is playing a 1900 in a long, standard game. The 1900 starts the game with 1. e4, and the 1300 replies with 1...c5, or the Sicilian Defense. It is a sure bet that the 1900 knows the Sicilian better than the 1300, and will soon outplay him. I feel it’s better to choose lines that keep things basic and playable, like 1..e5 against 1. e4. I recommend getting a good feel for chess itself before deciding to take up openings that have fifty-billion strings of theory to them.
Of course, there are more, but these are the general topics that I have had on my mind lately. I will likely add another post in the future with a few other things that beginners miss, but this should suffice for now. Play slower, formulate a plan, and play as simply as possible. There is plenty of time to get cute and risky once you hit 1600.
Moving too fast
So many times I see beginners just pounding out opening moves, not taking more than a second to ponder what they are doing each turn. How do they wish to improve their game if they don’t even care where they place their pieces during one of the most crucial parts? Stay away from bullet chess. It creates bad habits in long games. Also, don’t just emulate the moves of strong players. They make those moves for a reason, and they know them. If you are just copying their setups, then you don’t know the reasons. Think good and hard before each move, no matter what stage of the game. Chess is about calculation. If you want fast-paced action, play Doom.
No plan
If you reach a certain part of the game and just move your pieces around aimlessly, you are doing it wrong. Each and every move, formulate a plan, even if it’s a bad one. At least *know* why you are making your moves. If the game is lost and you are playing on, you should still try and find the best moves available to you. Many a comeback has been had in just that manner. Know which squares you control, keep your eye out for tactics, and try not to blunder too badly. That’s the name of the game.
Playing lines with tons of theory
This may seem like a silly one, but I believe it to be true. Take this, for instance: A 1300 is playing a 1900 in a long, standard game. The 1900 starts the game with 1. e4, and the 1300 replies with 1...c5, or the Sicilian Defense. It is a sure bet that the 1900 knows the Sicilian better than the 1300, and will soon outplay him. I feel it’s better to choose lines that keep things basic and playable, like 1..e5 against 1. e4. I recommend getting a good feel for chess itself before deciding to take up openings that have fifty-billion strings of theory to them.
Of course, there are more, but these are the general topics that I have had on my mind lately. I will likely add another post in the future with a few other things that beginners miss, but this should suffice for now. Play slower, formulate a plan, and play as simply as possible. There is plenty of time to get cute and risky once you hit 1600.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Abusive Internet Chess Players
If you play chess online, you know the type I mean. Nasty comments, hate-sitting, requesting draw offers over and over in a lost position, disconnecting instead of resigning, cheating – heck, the list goes on and on. So, what do we do when we encounter these people? Nothing, that’s what. Ignoring and reporting them is the best solution.
If someone calls us a name or laughs at us after an embarrassing loss and we react, they get the satisfaction of knowing they upset us. If we say nothing to these jerks, however, they are left empty-handed and might even become irritated themselves.
What about someone who has several minutes left on their clock and simply let their time run down instead of resigning? This is commonly called hate-sitting. While it is very annoying, there isn’t much to do besides reporting the player. Just turn the speaker volume up so you can hear the unlikely event of them making a move, and surf the web or something. Again, do not react because the hate-sitting player will be pleased with himself.
Potty-mouths are everywhere, but the anonymity of the Internet brings out the worst in some people. If someone curses at you or uses other abusive language, simply save the chat and report them. There is absolutely no sense in getting into a typing war with a moron over a chess game. Keep your blood pressure down and move on to the next opponent.
Anyone who knows me knows that I hate a cheater. Yes, hate is a strong word, but it is the most appropriate one I can think of. Why it’s any fun at all to fire up a chess engine and rob someone of hard-earned rating points is beyond me, but it happens. If you feel that your opponent cheated you, report the game so the proper administrators can have a look-see and determine if software usage was present. Don’t tell everyone on the site that so-and-so cheats, don’t call them a cheater, and don’t fire up an engine yourself so that you can win the next game against them. Ignore the player and find another opponent.
People love to do things to get us going, especially after a loss. If you play chess on the Net, you simply must accept this as part of the deal. Reacting to them stokes the fire instead of putting it out. Would you be upset if a child stuck his tongue out at you? Internet idiots use basically the same tactic. Don’t allow it to anger you, or the abuser gets what he wants.
If someone calls us a name or laughs at us after an embarrassing loss and we react, they get the satisfaction of knowing they upset us. If we say nothing to these jerks, however, they are left empty-handed and might even become irritated themselves.
What about someone who has several minutes left on their clock and simply let their time run down instead of resigning? This is commonly called hate-sitting. While it is very annoying, there isn’t much to do besides reporting the player. Just turn the speaker volume up so you can hear the unlikely event of them making a move, and surf the web or something. Again, do not react because the hate-sitting player will be pleased with himself.
Potty-mouths are everywhere, but the anonymity of the Internet brings out the worst in some people. If someone curses at you or uses other abusive language, simply save the chat and report them. There is absolutely no sense in getting into a typing war with a moron over a chess game. Keep your blood pressure down and move on to the next opponent.
Anyone who knows me knows that I hate a cheater. Yes, hate is a strong word, but it is the most appropriate one I can think of. Why it’s any fun at all to fire up a chess engine and rob someone of hard-earned rating points is beyond me, but it happens. If you feel that your opponent cheated you, report the game so the proper administrators can have a look-see and determine if software usage was present. Don’t tell everyone on the site that so-and-so cheats, don’t call them a cheater, and don’t fire up an engine yourself so that you can win the next game against them. Ignore the player and find another opponent.
People love to do things to get us going, especially after a loss. If you play chess on the Net, you simply must accept this as part of the deal. Reacting to them stokes the fire instead of putting it out. Would you be upset if a child stuck his tongue out at you? Internet idiots use basically the same tactic. Don’t allow it to anger you, or the abuser gets what he wants.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Chess theory at the class or club level
Most of us chess players fall into the class or club player level, meaning we aren’t experts or titled players. On that same note, most of us have not been playing serious, competitive chess since we were four, or seven, or even ten. The large majority of us, even if we do actively play in tournaments, play for the fun and love of the game. Sure, we love improving, but is GM really in our future?
So, what is all the talk about this line or that line being refuted, busted or archaic? Those phrases affect the FM, IM and GM most, because their understanding of the game is so deep. It’s their job to keep up on and memorize theory so they can remain competitive.
I’m going to assume that most of the folks reading this blog entry do not have a chess title of any sort, and lose games regularly due to silly mistakes. I know I do. So, if we botch tactics, screw up the move order in openings and thoroughly rot at endgames, what the heck does it matter that we are playing archaic lines that have been thrown out at the highest level? It doesn’t. Really, it is that simple.
This is especially true, in my opinion, when we get to openings like the Sicilian. Each Sicilian variation carries with it tons of theory and sharp lines. If your rating is 1450 and you like playing c5 against e4, I say, “Go for it!” Just don’t expect to get the results that a 2500 rated player will. 1...c5 may be theoretically the most powerful response to 1. e4, but it doesn’t win on its own. You also have to be a good player. Get the basic move order down, pick a variation you like and keep playing it. Don’t listen when some 1700 comes along and tells you that the Najdorf options have all been exhausted and so it isn’t worth playing. It is simply and completely untrue.
I don’t like learning a lot of theory, so I enjoy lines like 1. f4 or 1. Nf3 right off the bat, which turn into “chess” almost immediately instead of rote, memorized lines that anyone can bang out in a few seconds. If you want to learn theory, pick up the QGD or play 1. e4 and study like mad. The point is, that whichever line you decide to play, archaic or not, is going to be competitive at “our” level. If you are 12 years old and have a 2300 FIDE rating, of course it’s going to be different for you. However, if you are somewhere at mid-class level with the rest of us and dream of breaking 1800 some day, play whatever the heck you like. The theory means exactly zip.
So, what is all the talk about this line or that line being refuted, busted or archaic? Those phrases affect the FM, IM and GM most, because their understanding of the game is so deep. It’s their job to keep up on and memorize theory so they can remain competitive.
I’m going to assume that most of the folks reading this blog entry do not have a chess title of any sort, and lose games regularly due to silly mistakes. I know I do. So, if we botch tactics, screw up the move order in openings and thoroughly rot at endgames, what the heck does it matter that we are playing archaic lines that have been thrown out at the highest level? It doesn’t. Really, it is that simple.
This is especially true, in my opinion, when we get to openings like the Sicilian. Each Sicilian variation carries with it tons of theory and sharp lines. If your rating is 1450 and you like playing c5 against e4, I say, “Go for it!” Just don’t expect to get the results that a 2500 rated player will. 1...c5 may be theoretically the most powerful response to 1. e4, but it doesn’t win on its own. You also have to be a good player. Get the basic move order down, pick a variation you like and keep playing it. Don’t listen when some 1700 comes along and tells you that the Najdorf options have all been exhausted and so it isn’t worth playing. It is simply and completely untrue.
I don’t like learning a lot of theory, so I enjoy lines like 1. f4 or 1. Nf3 right off the bat, which turn into “chess” almost immediately instead of rote, memorized lines that anyone can bang out in a few seconds. If you want to learn theory, pick up the QGD or play 1. e4 and study like mad. The point is, that whichever line you decide to play, archaic or not, is going to be competitive at “our” level. If you are 12 years old and have a 2300 FIDE rating, of course it’s going to be different for you. However, if you are somewhere at mid-class level with the rest of us and dream of breaking 1800 some day, play whatever the heck you like. The theory means exactly zip.
Friday, June 24, 2011
What's your favorite chess set?
My first chess set was bought from the friend of a dead Master (no kidding) for $15. It had a fancy-ish but well-used green roll-up vinyl board, an ugly green bag and those yellow and black, really heavy pieces you sometimes see at the chess club. I loved it. I used it for years and it just kept going.
Eventually, I took each piece apart and re-seated the lead weights with clear RTV so they wouldn’t rattle anymore. A few thousand 5/0 games had taken their toll on the innards, especially the rooks. This both made them a tad heavier and much, much more solid sounding. If you were pick up one of my rooks, and set it down with authority, it sounded like a small gun had gone off. *BAM!* The things are really wicked.
Anyhow, I ended up moving on to more expensive, Staunton style plastic double-weighted sets (as opposed to the triple-weight of the first set) from House of Jocques, I believe. Anyhow, I got two identical sets in different colors so that I could have a bunch of sets, depending on my mood. I got a red/tan set and a black/white set, so I could bring white/red, black/red, tan/white, black/tan – well, you get the idea. It went over well, and folks liked the red pieces, especially. Well, *most* folks did, but I’ll save the one who didn’t for another entry.
Then I purchased a really nice wooden set – the kind where you can SEE the grains; I love that stuff. It’s my serious tournament set to this day, but is it my favorite set? I don’t believe so. I get a lot of compliments on it and all, but really, it’s hard to beat the weight and ruggedness of my first set.
So, my favorite set is still the yellow/black “Thumper” set, as I affectionately call it. The only drawback to the set is that it’s old and the pieces aren’t exactly new looking, and it only has one queen per color, whereas the rest of my sets came with four queens. But, they can be ordered cheaply enough and I’m considering doing that!
Eventually, I took each piece apart and re-seated the lead weights with clear RTV so they wouldn’t rattle anymore. A few thousand 5/0 games had taken their toll on the innards, especially the rooks. This both made them a tad heavier and much, much more solid sounding. If you were pick up one of my rooks, and set it down with authority, it sounded like a small gun had gone off. *BAM!* The things are really wicked.
Anyhow, I ended up moving on to more expensive, Staunton style plastic double-weighted sets (as opposed to the triple-weight of the first set) from House of Jocques, I believe. Anyhow, I got two identical sets in different colors so that I could have a bunch of sets, depending on my mood. I got a red/tan set and a black/white set, so I could bring white/red, black/red, tan/white, black/tan – well, you get the idea. It went over well, and folks liked the red pieces, especially. Well, *most* folks did, but I’ll save the one who didn’t for another entry.
Then I purchased a really nice wooden set – the kind where you can SEE the grains; I love that stuff. It’s my serious tournament set to this day, but is it my favorite set? I don’t believe so. I get a lot of compliments on it and all, but really, it’s hard to beat the weight and ruggedness of my first set.
So, my favorite set is still the yellow/black “Thumper” set, as I affectionately call it. The only drawback to the set is that it’s old and the pieces aren’t exactly new looking, and it only has one queen per color, whereas the rest of my sets came with four queens. But, they can be ordered cheaply enough and I’m considering doing that!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Bobby Fischer: Leave him Alone.
So, I watched the Fischer documentary that HBO put out a couple of nights ago, and it got me thinking about how I’m tired of all the anti-Fischer zealots that seem to be everywhere. Even folks that aren’t in the chess world think of him as a raving lunatic, and that is in large part thanks to mass media, in my opinion. I’m not here to dispel any myths or to prove anything about the man and I’m not a psychologist. I wish only to offer another point of view into the Fischer saga that everyone seems to have an opinion about.
First off, Fischer lived with chess and chess only from a very young age, right on up into adulthood. The documentary mentioned this and even Fischer admitted that he might be a tad more well-rounded had he led a more normal life during childhood. Nobody can be expected to turn out “normal” with only chess as a companion during the formative years. That’s weird in and of itself. I’m not saying it’s what made Fischer “insane,” but I’m sure it didn’t help.
Fischer was off the charts with his I.Q., literally – at least that’s the way I read it somewhere. They told his mother that he was above 200 and had an exceptional memory. You know the whole, “Don’t judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes” thing? Well, it’s pretty obvious that the large majority of us do not have a 200 I.Q. So, maybe we should keep our non-extreme-genius opinions to ourselves until we see the world the same way Fischer did.
He won the world championship for the USA in 1972 against Russia during the Cold War, a period in which such a win was very important. Later, the USA cast him out as a fugitive and jailed him because he played chess, the same game which put us on the map so many years ago. I might harbor a little disdain for the country, as well. He should be a hero in this community, no matter what his personal views are. Just saying.
He was Jewish and hated Jews. So what? I’ll bet if we dig around in each of our heads a little we’ll find quite a few weird things that would put us in the “weird” or even “insane” category. He didn’t like women either, and especially women chess players. Again, so what? The man surely has a right to his opinions, and if they don’t match the rest of ours or aren’t “politically correct,” it’s neither here nor there. Let’s appreciate him for his chess prowess and let his games live in infamy instead of attacking the oddball side of him all the time. Sports figures abuse drugs, rape women, kill dogs and trash hotel rooms on a regular basis, and yet the public at large is willing to let those inadequacies go as long as they keep scoring goals. That’s way more insane than admitting you like Fischer, who did nothing more than harbor hateful opinions. Get real, folks.
I could go on and on, and likely will, in future blog posts. The point is that the way in which the media portrayed Fischer, the way in which we as individuals or a whole chess community think we understand Fischer and the way Fischer actually was inside are likely all very, very different. Alekhine was dubbed a drunk and an anti-Semite, Morphy was said to have lost it at the end and Steinitz as well, and I personally have yet to meet a chess player (not someone who knows how to play chess, mind you, but a chess player) who seems completely well-adjusted and 100% sane.
We chess addicts are all a bit weird, and it’s completely believable that the better we are at the game, the more outside the normal box we live. Again, I ask, “So what?” There is more to life and chess than roasting a man for this or that, or judging him for off-the-board qualities that may or may not actually be possessed. Just as a sports fan can so easily overlook the egregious errors of his or her favorite jock, we too should be able to look past the person and appreciate them for the part we love: their chess games. That’s my two cents, and I’m sticking by it.
First off, Fischer lived with chess and chess only from a very young age, right on up into adulthood. The documentary mentioned this and even Fischer admitted that he might be a tad more well-rounded had he led a more normal life during childhood. Nobody can be expected to turn out “normal” with only chess as a companion during the formative years. That’s weird in and of itself. I’m not saying it’s what made Fischer “insane,” but I’m sure it didn’t help.
Fischer was off the charts with his I.Q., literally – at least that’s the way I read it somewhere. They told his mother that he was above 200 and had an exceptional memory. You know the whole, “Don’t judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes” thing? Well, it’s pretty obvious that the large majority of us do not have a 200 I.Q. So, maybe we should keep our non-extreme-genius opinions to ourselves until we see the world the same way Fischer did.
He won the world championship for the USA in 1972 against Russia during the Cold War, a period in which such a win was very important. Later, the USA cast him out as a fugitive and jailed him because he played chess, the same game which put us on the map so many years ago. I might harbor a little disdain for the country, as well. He should be a hero in this community, no matter what his personal views are. Just saying.
He was Jewish and hated Jews. So what? I’ll bet if we dig around in each of our heads a little we’ll find quite a few weird things that would put us in the “weird” or even “insane” category. He didn’t like women either, and especially women chess players. Again, so what? The man surely has a right to his opinions, and if they don’t match the rest of ours or aren’t “politically correct,” it’s neither here nor there. Let’s appreciate him for his chess prowess and let his games live in infamy instead of attacking the oddball side of him all the time. Sports figures abuse drugs, rape women, kill dogs and trash hotel rooms on a regular basis, and yet the public at large is willing to let those inadequacies go as long as they keep scoring goals. That’s way more insane than admitting you like Fischer, who did nothing more than harbor hateful opinions. Get real, folks.
I could go on and on, and likely will, in future blog posts. The point is that the way in which the media portrayed Fischer, the way in which we as individuals or a whole chess community think we understand Fischer and the way Fischer actually was inside are likely all very, very different. Alekhine was dubbed a drunk and an anti-Semite, Morphy was said to have lost it at the end and Steinitz as well, and I personally have yet to meet a chess player (not someone who knows how to play chess, mind you, but a chess player) who seems completely well-adjusted and 100% sane.
We chess addicts are all a bit weird, and it’s completely believable that the better we are at the game, the more outside the normal box we live. Again, I ask, “So what?” There is more to life and chess than roasting a man for this or that, or judging him for off-the-board qualities that may or may not actually be possessed. Just as a sports fan can so easily overlook the egregious errors of his or her favorite jock, we too should be able to look past the person and appreciate them for the part we love: their chess games. That’s my two cents, and I’m sticking by it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)