Well, folks, Day Three ended as exciting as anything chess-related can end. Before I get into that, though, allow me to try and convey how it feels to be in the playing hall at any given moment.
A chess tournament of this size is quite possibly one of the only events in the world where a couple thousand people can be in the same room and yet the only sounds are the occasional cough, and clothes reporting as people walk. One doesn’t realize how much noise clothes make when we move until one is in a setting like that; it’s really intriguing. It made me realize why Ninja wear tight suits.
I noticed this year that there are very, very few analog clocks being used. Just about everyone has moved on to digital. While that is kind of sad in a way, it’s also a sign of the times; digital clocks are far more accurate and they allow for multiple time controls and increments, so they are hard to argue with. Most of the clocks here are either the Chronos variety (touch-sensitive, mostly – push-buttons have all but gone the way of the dodo) or the blue Saitek plastic jobs. Both are very nice.
Okay, on to the good stuff.
So, I’m sitting and watching a game in which two 1940s USCF players are battling it out in an endgame. One player was a male, and had a lot more time on his clock than his female opponent, who had an easily won game. Making sense? I am not very caffeinated yet this morning.
Anyhow, it was king and pawn vs. queen and king – it’s not hard to win that, but it’s technical, and the lady’s opponent was giving her every bit of grief he possibly could. Stalemate threats were all over the place, so she had to be careful with each and every move. She was making a few inaccuracies due to being low on time, but she was generally doing well. Suddenly her cell phone, which was in her handbag on the table, began ringing very loudly. At first I thought it was me, but I’m very careful about muting mine.
She finally got her hands on it and it stopped going off, but it was far too late. The TD came over and announced that she would suffer a ten-minute loss because of the offense.
He picked the clock up, messed with it a bit, placed it back on the table and said, “You now have four minutes instead of fourteen. Good luck.” It was ruthless but again, big props to Continental Chess for sticking to their guns and enforcing the rules. Needless to say, she wasn’t happy but she kept going, neglecting to continue writing moves down due to being very low on time.
Ten minutes later, her phone went off again. None of us could believe it.
She pointed at her purse and continued to look for the correct move on the board because she had almost no time left. I reached in, pulled the offending phone out, and desperately searched for the button that would shut it up. I didn’t find it and after she made her move and hit the clock, she took it from me and fuddled with it. The problem was, she didn’t know how to shut it off, either. Uh-oh.
While this was going on, two IMs were battling in an extremely technical endgame, and they were both terribly low on time. That made for a bad combination, as it’s never a good idea to disturb an IM in any portion of the game, but especially when low on time.
The TD came back over and announced that the second offense was an automatic loss, and stopped the clock. The girl was very upset, and began pleading with him, loudly. One IM stood up and yelled for everyone to go outside. The voices quieted, but not by much. It’s tough to find chess-drama but when you do, it’s highly entertaining.
That’s when something weird and very touching happened.
The female said to her opponent that since she was in such an easily won position, they should have forced a draw instead of a loss – it just wasn’t fair. Her opponent, who had just won the game by forfeit and had the full point, told her he’d take a draw, but he wasn’t sure the TDs would allow it. She brought one over, they discussed it, and the game was drawn. That was definitely one of the coolest, most selfless maneuvers I have seen in a long time.
Once that debate was settled, I went to watch the IMs play, which was the only game still going on. These IMs are very, very young; one of them doesn’t look a day over sixteen and the other maybe eighteen. One IM is just under the 2500 Elo mark, the other just above. These are not patzers. I took a gander at the position and decided that I had no clue how I would proceed, and these poor guys each had less than six minutes on their clocks in which to do so. Oh, boy. I snapped a few silent pictures off as they struggled, which I think turned out real, real good.
Strong move after strong move was made, and a ton of rook checks and double-exclam pawn pushes, all very quickly. I hate to use the term, but this was pure chess porn. I’m a total nerd, and so I’m literally getting chills writing about it and revisiting the moment in my head.
Finally, the lower-rated IM made a fatal mistake and dropped one of his pawns. He had another pawn that would be captured easily and with mate to follow, so he stopped the clock and offered his hand, which his opponent gladly shook. They did a little post-game rehash and got up to wander back to their rooms. It was 12:30 in the morning and the huge ballroom was almost completely empty. There’s nothing like watching a hard-fought game. It really was awesome.
I snapped a picture of the chess clock just before they shut it down: the losing player had 4 seconds left, the winner 7.
That’s chess, ladies and gentlemen, at the highest and most brutal level.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
2011 NAO Report One - Dec 28th
Well, I’m here in Vegas at the NAO (North American Open), held at Bally’s hotel and casino. Is there action? You bet. I have been standing for twelve or more hours each day, bouncing around from strong game to strong game, trying to guess the moves, smiling at people, and wishing I were playing. There aren’t as many well-known players as there was last year, it seems, but there are definitely some powerhouses in attendance.
GM Francisco Vallejo Pons (his friends call him Paco) is batting his opponents around like they aren’t there. I really enjoy watching him because not only are his games extremely strong (he is listed on the tourney roster as 2778 Elo – not a fish), but he dresses the part, too, always looking well-groomed and wearing a suit. There is something I have always enjoyed about titled players wearing suits to play chess; it gives the impression that they respect the game, they care about appearance, and they honor the masters of old, who always wore suits to professional tournaments.
He is tied with GM Ivan Sokolov, both at 3.0 points out of three rounds. When they meet and push wood, it’s going to be a fabulous game. As I type, GM Pons is in a *very* interesting position with GM Ivan Sokolov on the white side of a Reti turned QGD. I’m no GM, of course, but it’s very hard to say how this one will turn out. Pons is super strong, though, and it seems his specialty is coming up with last-minute knockouts. He’s seriously good, and a blast to watch.
The air in the tournament hall is nothing short of electric. Other than the occasional cough or throat-clearing, it’s silent as the tomb. Yes, the occasional idiot’s cell phone goes off loudly, but the directors are extremely vigilant about chasing them out. I’m thoroughly impressed with how well such a big tournament is being run. So far, I have witnessed zero issues. Kudos to Continental Chess and Randy Hough. Major kudos, in fact.
Other strong folks in attendance are GM Var Akobian, GM Josh Friedel, GM Alexander Shabalov, WIM Iryna Zenyuk, and IM Adam Hunt, just to name a few. Needless to say, it’s awe-inspiring being in the same room with these people. At least, it is for me; when a 2778 passes me in the hallway, it may as well be Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt for everyone else. My eyes go wide, I get a chill or two, and I wonder how their mind works, and what’s wrong with mine that I suck so hard at the same game in which they excel.
Anyhow, I slept in a little (a lot) this morning because I burned the midnight oil (the 4 A.M. oil, as it were), so I’m off to the tourney now. I’ll get there in time to see the conclusion of the first round and to grab a snack before getting back to being a professional gawker. Life, as they say, is good.
GM Francisco Vallejo Pons (his friends call him Paco) is batting his opponents around like they aren’t there. I really enjoy watching him because not only are his games extremely strong (he is listed on the tourney roster as 2778 Elo – not a fish), but he dresses the part, too, always looking well-groomed and wearing a suit. There is something I have always enjoyed about titled players wearing suits to play chess; it gives the impression that they respect the game, they care about appearance, and they honor the masters of old, who always wore suits to professional tournaments.
He is tied with GM Ivan Sokolov, both at 3.0 points out of three rounds. When they meet and push wood, it’s going to be a fabulous game. As I type, GM Pons is in a *very* interesting position with GM Ivan Sokolov on the white side of a Reti turned QGD. I’m no GM, of course, but it’s very hard to say how this one will turn out. Pons is super strong, though, and it seems his specialty is coming up with last-minute knockouts. He’s seriously good, and a blast to watch.
The air in the tournament hall is nothing short of electric. Other than the occasional cough or throat-clearing, it’s silent as the tomb. Yes, the occasional idiot’s cell phone goes off loudly, but the directors are extremely vigilant about chasing them out. I’m thoroughly impressed with how well such a big tournament is being run. So far, I have witnessed zero issues. Kudos to Continental Chess and Randy Hough. Major kudos, in fact.
Other strong folks in attendance are GM Var Akobian, GM Josh Friedel, GM Alexander Shabalov, WIM Iryna Zenyuk, and IM Adam Hunt, just to name a few. Needless to say, it’s awe-inspiring being in the same room with these people. At least, it is for me; when a 2778 passes me in the hallway, it may as well be Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt for everyone else. My eyes go wide, I get a chill or two, and I wonder how their mind works, and what’s wrong with mine that I suck so hard at the same game in which they excel.
Anyhow, I slept in a little (a lot) this morning because I burned the midnight oil (the 4 A.M. oil, as it were), so I’m off to the tourney now. I’ll get there in time to see the conclusion of the first round and to grab a snack before getting back to being a professional gawker. Life, as they say, is good.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Chess and Writing: They are Very Similar
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)