I relate everything to chess; I always have. Those of you as obsessed with the game as I am understand such an oddity. Bobby Fischer once said, “Chess is life,” and while that may sound insane to someone who isn’t addicted to the game, it sounds perfectly clear to me; in fact, it sounds reasonable. I suppose that’s a tad scary, but we’ll leave that dog lie for another blog post.
Lately, I have noticed a strong correlation between chess and writing, especially when it comes to fiction. I do write articles and other web content, but fiction is my passion as well as, of course, chess. The two seem to walk hand-in-hand like lovers on a moonlit beach. I’ll try to explain what I mean.
In a chess game, we can make quick and ‘obvious’ moves that may or may not be blunders, may or may not better our position, and may or may not be winning or losing. They are just moves that bounce out of the board to us immediately. Many times, we act on our first-sight moves in blitz, or rapid, chess. That is why it isn’t good to play blitz exclusively; we’ll ever learn much or improve if we always make the first move that jumps out at us. That’s a fact.
It’s much the same with writing. The first draft of our stories can be related to blitz chess: there are glaring errors, it isn’t organized well, people in the story do things that are way out of character, etcetera. Ernest Hemmingway literally said, “The first draft of anything is shit.” I have always liked and respected that sentence. It’s so simple, and yet says so much – like a good chess move.
As a general rule, we get better at something the more we learn about and practice it; chess and writing are no different. However, in order to learn about them, to really learn about them, we have to put in the work. Chess requires many hours of hard study and play if you wish to be competitive, and writing requires hard-core, honest editing and rewriting if you want the story to be excellent, and not just good. A good story is easy to tell, but an excellent one takes work. That’s just the way it is.
What if, in a chess game that we lost, we were able to slowly review each move we made and change any and all moves that we wished? Well, we would win a lot of games, wouldn’t we? So, why not completely review and then rewrite a story that you’ve written? It can only be beneficial, both to you and the reader. Chess and writing are not things that should be cheapened. They are arts in their own right, and should be treated as such.
In the past, I had only heavily edited stories, not rewritten them completely. However, my most recent piece felt disjointed and scattered, like trying to find Waldo in a crowd. Characters were acting in ways they would not, some of the settings weren’t at all what I wanted, and I didn’t shape the personalities and relationships of the people well enough. Oh, sure, it was still a good story, I think, but it wasn’t great. If I’m going to put the time and effort forth to write a tale, I want it to be great, not good.
So, I embarked in a total rewrite. I first made a chronological timeline of events as they should happen, I made character sketches, and I wrote down small reminders of things that I wanted to strengthen or that I had missed completely, and then I opened a blank document. The second time around is a ton more fun than the first, I’m finding. Not only do I get to visit all my characters again, but in a much more personal, real way. I’m doing them justice. The writing is stronger. The flow is nicer. The story itself is much more believable and the ending will be far more intense.
Blitz chess is shit, and first drafts are shit. If you are a chess player or a writer, do yourself a favor and put a little time into your passion; you won’t believe the rewards.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
FIDE Titles for Women
I’d like to talk a little bit about chess titles for men and women. There is a large, gaping disparity between them at the FIDE level, and I have never been a big fan of that. Chess is a single game, and it’s the same for everyone. Women play with the exact same number of pawns and pieces as a man does. Therefore, the ratings for titles should be the same for everyone. Or, should they?
For a male chess player, 2500 Elo marks grandmaster territory, and yet I just saw a WGM today in a ChessBase article who carries a 2214 rating. Really? 2200? Now, don’t get me wrong, here, reaching 2200 is a wonderful feat in chess, and an extremely low number of players ever get close to approaching it. However, 2200 marks the minimum level in which a male chess player can carry a master title, per USCF, and 2300 per FIDE. So, what gives? Do women become masters at 1900, then?
Let’s take Jennifer Shahade, for instance. She is an awesome woman and a great player who has done a ton for both the chess community in general and especially women in chess, and she’s a WGM. Her rating, as of this writing, is 2322. Again, please don’t misunderstand: 2300 is an extremely high rating. However, it isn’t a GM rating. It’s a low FM rating per FIDE, unless you happen to be female. Do you think that is fair? Do you think it’s degrading to women? Do you think it matters?
Jen’s FIDE card: http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2011905
I would think such handicaps would be extremely degrading to a woman, especially in this day and age of equality. There are some actual female GMs, such as the Polgar sisters and Hou Yifan, China’s rising star. Hou is knocking on 2600’s door, which puts her in a far different league than the average WGM. She’s an actual GM, who worked her way up the classical FIDE ranks, just as any male has to.
So, do you think that it’s insulting that women get their own title categories, and yet are still able to achieve classic FIDE titles, should they earn them? Do you feel that all chess players, regardless of sex, age, race, or religion, should have to reach 2300 to become an FM, 2400 to become an IM, and 2500 to reach GM?
Chess is largely a male-dominated game, but there is no tangible reason for it; that’s just the way it is. There are many theories as to why, as a whole, women aren’t as good at the game as men are, but that’s neither here nor there: the fact is that we are all people, and we all have the exact same chances at a win because we are all playing the exact same game. I’m not known for being very politically correct, and I think that a title is a title; if you can’t earn the numbers, you don’t get to call yourself a master.
Let it be known, as well, that I do not feel that the women’s title system is unfair to men; quite the opposite, really. I feel that it’s extremely unfair to women. I could very possibly play tournament chess for ten more years and not earn a 2200 rating, which would only be a National Master here in the United States. That’s a neat title, but comparatively, it’s only master. GM is still worlds and worlds away. The fact that a woman can carry a 2200 rating and be a WGM is just silly. It cheapens the title.
It’s kind of like when the sheriff pins a plastic golden star on a child, making him an honorary deputy: that’s cool and all, for kids, but in reality it’s meaningless other than to encourage the youth and make him or her feel good. Is that what women’s FIDE titles are meant to do?
Now, I know some of you are reading this and seething, so I’ll offer the other side of the coin, here. USA does not, I repeat, does not, have specialized titles for women. Chess players are either Expert, or they are not; chess players are either Master, or they are not. However, the USA is a *free* country, meaning women have the exact same opportunities in life than men do. They are getting educated, they have choices, they have power. Hell, they can walk into a book store and pick up Silman’s “Reassess your Chess” if they like.
Not so in other countries, and that may affect things greatly.
In some countries, women are still thought of as chattel; they are nothing more than property, like a cow or a dog would be here in the U.S. Now, how can we expect a woman to come from an environment like that and soar to high chess heights? They can’t browse the Internet and watch lectures, they can’t hire a titled tutor, they can’t go down to Central Park and play a few casual games to brush up on their Sicilian Najdorf. They just can’t.
I have big respect and awe for a woman coming out of an oppressed country and playing chess successfully. It must be extremely hard for some of them to do so, and then to blast past 2200 FIDE on top of that is absolutely amazing. Are these particular women, the ones who earn a WGM title at 2200, justified in doing so? Are they the reason FIDE incorporated the title separations in the first place? Is that ever going to change?
You tell me.
For a male chess player, 2500 Elo marks grandmaster territory, and yet I just saw a WGM today in a ChessBase article who carries a 2214 rating. Really? 2200? Now, don’t get me wrong, here, reaching 2200 is a wonderful feat in chess, and an extremely low number of players ever get close to approaching it. However, 2200 marks the minimum level in which a male chess player can carry a master title, per USCF, and 2300 per FIDE. So, what gives? Do women become masters at 1900, then?
Let’s take Jennifer Shahade, for instance. She is an awesome woman and a great player who has done a ton for both the chess community in general and especially women in chess, and she’s a WGM. Her rating, as of this writing, is 2322. Again, please don’t misunderstand: 2300 is an extremely high rating. However, it isn’t a GM rating. It’s a low FM rating per FIDE, unless you happen to be female. Do you think that is fair? Do you think it’s degrading to women? Do you think it matters?
Jen’s FIDE card: http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2011905
I would think such handicaps would be extremely degrading to a woman, especially in this day and age of equality. There are some actual female GMs, such as the Polgar sisters and Hou Yifan, China’s rising star. Hou is knocking on 2600’s door, which puts her in a far different league than the average WGM. She’s an actual GM, who worked her way up the classical FIDE ranks, just as any male has to.
So, do you think that it’s insulting that women get their own title categories, and yet are still able to achieve classic FIDE titles, should they earn them? Do you feel that all chess players, regardless of sex, age, race, or religion, should have to reach 2300 to become an FM, 2400 to become an IM, and 2500 to reach GM?
Chess is largely a male-dominated game, but there is no tangible reason for it; that’s just the way it is. There are many theories as to why, as a whole, women aren’t as good at the game as men are, but that’s neither here nor there: the fact is that we are all people, and we all have the exact same chances at a win because we are all playing the exact same game. I’m not known for being very politically correct, and I think that a title is a title; if you can’t earn the numbers, you don’t get to call yourself a master.
Let it be known, as well, that I do not feel that the women’s title system is unfair to men; quite the opposite, really. I feel that it’s extremely unfair to women. I could very possibly play tournament chess for ten more years and not earn a 2200 rating, which would only be a National Master here in the United States. That’s a neat title, but comparatively, it’s only master. GM is still worlds and worlds away. The fact that a woman can carry a 2200 rating and be a WGM is just silly. It cheapens the title.
It’s kind of like when the sheriff pins a plastic golden star on a child, making him an honorary deputy: that’s cool and all, for kids, but in reality it’s meaningless other than to encourage the youth and make him or her feel good. Is that what women’s FIDE titles are meant to do?
Now, I know some of you are reading this and seething, so I’ll offer the other side of the coin, here. USA does not, I repeat, does not, have specialized titles for women. Chess players are either Expert, or they are not; chess players are either Master, or they are not. However, the USA is a *free* country, meaning women have the exact same opportunities in life than men do. They are getting educated, they have choices, they have power. Hell, they can walk into a book store and pick up Silman’s “Reassess your Chess” if they like.
Not so in other countries, and that may affect things greatly.
In some countries, women are still thought of as chattel; they are nothing more than property, like a cow or a dog would be here in the U.S. Now, how can we expect a woman to come from an environment like that and soar to high chess heights? They can’t browse the Internet and watch lectures, they can’t hire a titled tutor, they can’t go down to Central Park and play a few casual games to brush up on their Sicilian Najdorf. They just can’t.
I have big respect and awe for a woman coming out of an oppressed country and playing chess successfully. It must be extremely hard for some of them to do so, and then to blast past 2200 FIDE on top of that is absolutely amazing. Are these particular women, the ones who earn a WGM title at 2200, justified in doing so? Are they the reason FIDE incorporated the title separations in the first place? Is that ever going to change?
You tell me.
Friday, December 16, 2011
North American Open 2011
Gang, it is official: I’m going to Vegas this year again to check out the North American Open chess tournament! I’m giddy.
Last year was a blast, and this year will be even better, because I have a higher-quality camera and the specific intent to do an in-depth write up on my experience. Last year, I took a bunch of pictures with a cheaper camera, and you can’t even tell who the people in them are unless you are really, really in the know; they definitely aren’t worth publishing. I think I got one clear picture of Var Akobian, and another of Irina Krush’s back as she examined a game with a male IM. Weee...
Anyhow, our room is booked and I have butterflies in my stomach. I guess my nerd status goes up considerably when I am excited to go to Vegas for chess instead of women, booze, and gambling. I am definitely an addict and lover of this game. Just the thought of watching a strong GM reach out for a piece gets me excited.
I may have to buy some new shoes this year because last year, my feet were killing me by the second day. I’m just too much of a die-hard to watch something so thrilling from a chair. So, I stand.
Okay, that’s about it. Carry on.
Last year was a blast, and this year will be even better, because I have a higher-quality camera and the specific intent to do an in-depth write up on my experience. Last year, I took a bunch of pictures with a cheaper camera, and you can’t even tell who the people in them are unless you are really, really in the know; they definitely aren’t worth publishing. I think I got one clear picture of Var Akobian, and another of Irina Krush’s back as she examined a game with a male IM. Weee...
Anyhow, our room is booked and I have butterflies in my stomach. I guess my nerd status goes up considerably when I am excited to go to Vegas for chess instead of women, booze, and gambling. I am definitely an addict and lover of this game. Just the thought of watching a strong GM reach out for a piece gets me excited.
I may have to buy some new shoes this year because last year, my feet were killing me by the second day. I’m just too much of a die-hard to watch something so thrilling from a chair. So, I stand.
Okay, that’s about it. Carry on.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Antichess: Bullet Strategy
Wait, is antichess even a word? Nope. Well, kind of, but you will not have heard it unless you are a nerd like me. Antichess is actually a strategy used in bullet (1-minute) games, and usually by patzers in the 1500-1600 range – at least in the opening stages. But, what is it, exactly?
Antichess literally means playing horrible or extremely questionable moves in a bullet game, hoping your opponent pre-moves something else or doesn’t notice your move, allowing you a cheap-shot win.
For instance, moving a bishop to threaten your opponent’s queen when the bishop is completely unguarded. It can just be taken. However, because your opponent is either pre-moving the opening, or maybe he/she is really low on time, they have another move in mind and make it immediately. You then take the queen, sometimes for free, and their blood pressure spikes. It really is maddening, unless you are the one playing antichess.
I see a lot of this in the opening. For instance, some mook will fianchetto a bishop on g6, and then crash it into your pawn on b2 for no reason. Because we did not expect such a funky move, we ignore it and play something else, usually a developing move, immediately, and lose a rook clean. Welcome to antichess.
Another good antichess strategy are unexpected and dubious checks. If your opponent has one second or less left on his clock and you have more, simply crash the queen or another piece into whatever you can, causing check. Sometimes, knights are good for this because the escape route isn’t always so clear when a player is all keyed up. Your opponent will not have expected such a move, and will have pre-moved something else, which causes his flag to fall while he desperately tries to figure out why his move didn’t work. It’s because he’s in check. It works like a charm, even on high-rated players.
I mentioned earlier that (mostly) only patzers play this stuff, at least in the opening. Why is it only 1500-1600 players who attempt this junk? Two reasons: One, because they have absolutely no clue how to properly formulate a plan in chess, and so they go for the cheapos to win. Two, you simply cannot advance much past the 1600s using only antichess strategies in the opening. A player may fall for that crap a couple few times, but once they get your number, you’ll lose every single game.
Even GMs and other titled players play a bit of antichess when low on time, but they cannot get away with that crud in the opening or middle game, because their titled opponents will simply crush them like a flies. But, we are all human, and when we have less than a second on the clock, things get dicey. That’s when I recommend throwing your checks, pushing your pawns, sacrificing pieces without reason. Antichess works, if you do it right.
Antichess literally means playing horrible or extremely questionable moves in a bullet game, hoping your opponent pre-moves something else or doesn’t notice your move, allowing you a cheap-shot win.
For instance, moving a bishop to threaten your opponent’s queen when the bishop is completely unguarded. It can just be taken. However, because your opponent is either pre-moving the opening, or maybe he/she is really low on time, they have another move in mind and make it immediately. You then take the queen, sometimes for free, and their blood pressure spikes. It really is maddening, unless you are the one playing antichess.
I see a lot of this in the opening. For instance, some mook will fianchetto a bishop on g6, and then crash it into your pawn on b2 for no reason. Because we did not expect such a funky move, we ignore it and play something else, usually a developing move, immediately, and lose a rook clean. Welcome to antichess.
Another good antichess strategy are unexpected and dubious checks. If your opponent has one second or less left on his clock and you have more, simply crash the queen or another piece into whatever you can, causing check. Sometimes, knights are good for this because the escape route isn’t always so clear when a player is all keyed up. Your opponent will not have expected such a move, and will have pre-moved something else, which causes his flag to fall while he desperately tries to figure out why his move didn’t work. It’s because he’s in check. It works like a charm, even on high-rated players.
I mentioned earlier that (mostly) only patzers play this stuff, at least in the opening. Why is it only 1500-1600 players who attempt this junk? Two reasons: One, because they have absolutely no clue how to properly formulate a plan in chess, and so they go for the cheapos to win. Two, you simply cannot advance much past the 1600s using only antichess strategies in the opening. A player may fall for that crap a couple few times, but once they get your number, you’ll lose every single game.
Even GMs and other titled players play a bit of antichess when low on time, but they cannot get away with that crud in the opening or middle game, because their titled opponents will simply crush them like a flies. But, we are all human, and when we have less than a second on the clock, things get dicey. That’s when I recommend throwing your checks, pushing your pawns, sacrificing pieces without reason. Antichess works, if you do it right.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Improving Your Chess for Free!
Lots of beginners ask what books or software they should buy, who they should take lessons from, or what other commercial materials might help their game. The truth is, nothing replaces cold, hard, studying, and there are infinite ways to study for no money.
Game databases. Want to know how to play your openings correctly? Download a pgn base of masters who play the openings, and go through the games meticulously. Find out what they do, and compare that to what you do. There are a ton of free databases online that feature GM games, opening principles, and famous matches. That’s the cream of the crop, there.
Download free software. Programs like Arena, ChessBase Light, Winboard, and SCID all allow you to study games with a very powerful engines, input your own games, create pgn bases and more. There’s no need to invest in Rybka or Fritz or anything else until you become a strong club player and even then, it really isn’t a hard rule. Free engines have been playing at the 2500 level or above for years and years; you really don’t need a 3300 rated engine to tell you that you made a beginner’s blunder. Trust me on that.
Analyze your own games. This one is a biggie. Without knowing what you, specifically, are doing wrong, there is little chance of improvement. We all start out by emulating our favorite masters but until we find our own groove, we are going to suffer many embarrassing losses. That’s just the way it is.
Play long games. I say this over and over, and I stand firm that it’s the best way to improve. Blitz and bullet are fun, but they simply cannot replace sitting for ten minutes analyzing all sorts of variations and plans in your head. Improving at long chess improves your quick chess, not the other way around. It hurts more to lose a game you’ve invested two hours in, believe me; it makes you want to improve. If the losses don’t hurt, then the wins don’t mean much, either. Right?
Isolate a complicated position and analyze the hell out of it. This is a lot of fun with a buddy in real life, but of course it can be done alone or online, as well. Play out every single variation you can come up with, and eventually you will completely understand the position and all its nuances. Then, you can move onto another position and do the same. Before you know it, your board vision and tactical eye will increase on its own through these exercises.
Finally, study tactics. There are myriad places online in which to do this, and paperback books which will greatly aid in this area can be purchased extremely cheaply. I recommend any of Fred Reinfeld’s books, as they can be taken anywhere and studied whenever you get a few free moments. While they are not technically “free”, they pay for themselves in short order, and so I’m including them in the category.
Putting in the work and the time on your own will improve your game much more thoroughly than simply purchasing materials and passively going through them. It’s easy to fall into the “Well, if I buy the chess stuff it has to be better than the free materials,” state of mind, but it simply isn’t true, not at the beginner to intermediate level. Just as studying the works of great painters can give you ideas, reading though other people’s chess materials and recommendations is more of a guide; in the end, it’s you who has to create your own chess self.
Game databases. Want to know how to play your openings correctly? Download a pgn base of masters who play the openings, and go through the games meticulously. Find out what they do, and compare that to what you do. There are a ton of free databases online that feature GM games, opening principles, and famous matches. That’s the cream of the crop, there.
Download free software. Programs like Arena, ChessBase Light, Winboard, and SCID all allow you to study games with a very powerful engines, input your own games, create pgn bases and more. There’s no need to invest in Rybka or Fritz or anything else until you become a strong club player and even then, it really isn’t a hard rule. Free engines have been playing at the 2500 level or above for years and years; you really don’t need a 3300 rated engine to tell you that you made a beginner’s blunder. Trust me on that.
Analyze your own games. This one is a biggie. Without knowing what you, specifically, are doing wrong, there is little chance of improvement. We all start out by emulating our favorite masters but until we find our own groove, we are going to suffer many embarrassing losses. That’s just the way it is.
Play long games. I say this over and over, and I stand firm that it’s the best way to improve. Blitz and bullet are fun, but they simply cannot replace sitting for ten minutes analyzing all sorts of variations and plans in your head. Improving at long chess improves your quick chess, not the other way around. It hurts more to lose a game you’ve invested two hours in, believe me; it makes you want to improve. If the losses don’t hurt, then the wins don’t mean much, either. Right?
Isolate a complicated position and analyze the hell out of it. This is a lot of fun with a buddy in real life, but of course it can be done alone or online, as well. Play out every single variation you can come up with, and eventually you will completely understand the position and all its nuances. Then, you can move onto another position and do the same. Before you know it, your board vision and tactical eye will increase on its own through these exercises.
Finally, study tactics. There are myriad places online in which to do this, and paperback books which will greatly aid in this area can be purchased extremely cheaply. I recommend any of Fred Reinfeld’s books, as they can be taken anywhere and studied whenever you get a few free moments. While they are not technically “free”, they pay for themselves in short order, and so I’m including them in the category.
Putting in the work and the time on your own will improve your game much more thoroughly than simply purchasing materials and passively going through them. It’s easy to fall into the “Well, if I buy the chess stuff it has to be better than the free materials,” state of mind, but it simply isn’t true, not at the beginner to intermediate level. Just as studying the works of great painters can give you ideas, reading though other people’s chess materials and recommendations is more of a guide; in the end, it’s you who has to create your own chess self.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
I want it NOW!
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)