 |
| IM Byron Nickoloff, a Remarkable Man |
Showing posts with label Players. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Players. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Meetings With Remarkable Chess Masters
Meetings With Remarkable Chess Masters, posted today at Nigel Davies' The Chess Improver.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Edward Winter on "The Greatest"
I have enjoyed the recent (Relatively) Strongest Player poll and analysis of the players (and here are my older posts on the "The Greatest" and Top Ten players). Below is a stimulating view from a slightly different perspective by the great chess historian Edward Winter of Chess Notes fame:
Chess: The Greatest
The first paragraphs:
In discussions of that hoary question ‘Who is the greatest player of all time?’ assumptions tend to be made about the historical progression of playing strength which are by no means favourable to the old-timers. The view that chess is forever moving forward forces the conclusion that Morphy would have plenty to learn from the moderns, and one thus reads condescending speculation about how the American would fare today if he was generously granted six months or a year to ‘absorb all the new chess knowledge’ that has come into being since his time. His inferiority is further demonstrated by those deceptive ‘historical ratings’ and other mathematical sideshows. They have much to answer for, since it is only in the small print that we learn that if an Elo rating of, say, 2500 is a) earned by a modern player and b) dumped on a dead master that does not mean that the two are of comparable strength. The late Professor Arpad Elo confirmed this in a letter to us dated 18 November 1988.
With recourse to reason and logic, can a case be constructed for actually believing that some of the oldsters would be capable of unhorsing today’s leading exponents without any additional schooling? Objectivity is certainly needed here too, for the glamour attached to such names as Anderssen and Spielmann may misdirect a commentator who is by temperament a laudator temporis acti. In many respects the overall level of chess play, in terms of quantity and quality, has progressed immeasurably in recent decades, but it is noticeable that however large the mass of ordinary club players and ordinary masters the number of outstanding exponents at any one time remains relatively small. It is with that élite that we are concerned here. It can be argued that almost every chess title, including that of world champion, has been cheapened in recent years. ‘Grandmasters’ are so plentiful that it is quaint to recall how, even in 1953, their proliferation was being criticized. In that year’s May issue of Chess Review (page 129) a correspondent, W.N. Wilson, complained about the ‘loose use of the term’, and the magazine agreed that ‘there is something in Mr Wilson’s contention that there ought to be a distinctive title for those who tower head and shoulders above all others in their generation. With a couple of dozen grandmasters around now, we ought to have a grade designated between the bulk of these and the world champion’.
Take a few minutes to read the whole thing then come on back...
Winter wrote this in 1997, before the advent of really close "cooperation" between the top players and computers. I believe that in the intervening 15 years that grandmasters have indeed benefited from using computers for study, practice and especially to expand the range of chess ideas. Computers' ability to snatch material and weather the attack to victory and to find moves that are "ugly" but good have produced real advances, in my view. See for more of my opinions see this post, especially item 6.
Winter didn't minimze the progress in chess "strength" at the very top but as he concludes:
Do even today’s masters believe in their own superiority? Interviews indicate a mixture of views, but very few masters venture to claim that the ten strongest players of all time are all alive today. Personal ‘top ten’ lists almost invariably include a profuse sprinkling of old names, such as Capablanca. One can understand why he appears on almost everybody’s list: innumerable games were played by him in perfect style as far as anyone has been able to judge either then or now.
I don't think that has changed, if it is accurate. Maybe some of us should look into that claim, as a close examination of Capablanca's games could only make our own play stronger.
Chess: The Greatest
The first paragraphs:
In discussions of that hoary question ‘Who is the greatest player of all time?’ assumptions tend to be made about the historical progression of playing strength which are by no means favourable to the old-timers. The view that chess is forever moving forward forces the conclusion that Morphy would have plenty to learn from the moderns, and one thus reads condescending speculation about how the American would fare today if he was generously granted six months or a year to ‘absorb all the new chess knowledge’ that has come into being since his time. His inferiority is further demonstrated by those deceptive ‘historical ratings’ and other mathematical sideshows. They have much to answer for, since it is only in the small print that we learn that if an Elo rating of, say, 2500 is a) earned by a modern player and b) dumped on a dead master that does not mean that the two are of comparable strength. The late Professor Arpad Elo confirmed this in a letter to us dated 18 November 1988.
With recourse to reason and logic, can a case be constructed for actually believing that some of the oldsters would be capable of unhorsing today’s leading exponents without any additional schooling? Objectivity is certainly needed here too, for the glamour attached to such names as Anderssen and Spielmann may misdirect a commentator who is by temperament a laudator temporis acti. In many respects the overall level of chess play, in terms of quantity and quality, has progressed immeasurably in recent decades, but it is noticeable that however large the mass of ordinary club players and ordinary masters the number of outstanding exponents at any one time remains relatively small. It is with that élite that we are concerned here. It can be argued that almost every chess title, including that of world champion, has been cheapened in recent years. ‘Grandmasters’ are so plentiful that it is quaint to recall how, even in 1953, their proliferation was being criticized. In that year’s May issue of Chess Review (page 129) a correspondent, W.N. Wilson, complained about the ‘loose use of the term’, and the magazine agreed that ‘there is something in Mr Wilson’s contention that there ought to be a distinctive title for those who tower head and shoulders above all others in their generation. With a couple of dozen grandmasters around now, we ought to have a grade designated between the bulk of these and the world champion’.
Take a few minutes to read the whole thing then come on back...
Winter wrote this in 1997, before the advent of really close "cooperation" between the top players and computers. I believe that in the intervening 15 years that grandmasters have indeed benefited from using computers for study, practice and especially to expand the range of chess ideas. Computers' ability to snatch material and weather the attack to victory and to find moves that are "ugly" but good have produced real advances, in my view. See for more of my opinions see this post, especially item 6.
Winter didn't minimze the progress in chess "strength" at the very top but as he concludes:
Do even today’s masters believe in their own superiority? Interviews indicate a mixture of views, but very few masters venture to claim that the ten strongest players of all time are all alive today. Personal ‘top ten’ lists almost invariably include a profuse sprinkling of old names, such as Capablanca. One can understand why he appears on almost everybody’s list: innumerable games were played by him in perfect style as far as anyone has been able to judge either then or now.
I don't think that has changed, if it is accurate. Maybe some of us should look into that claim, as a close examination of Capablanca's games could only make our own play stronger.
Monday, March 19, 2012
(Relatively) Strongest Player Poll Results
(Update 03.20.2012 - after I published this Fischer experienced a "surge" of 4 more votes to bring his total to 12, but that seems like a little ballot box stuffing after the fact. The text below remains the same.)
After 10 days of voting on the (relatively) strongest chess player, here are the results and some comments.
Thirty-one votes were cast (thank you to all who took the time) and The Winner is:
Garry Kasparov, with 14 votes (45%)
I think it's certainly reasonable to choose Kasparov, especially based on the length of time he was at the very top. I left the exact criteria open ("How to rank degree of dominance and length of time at the top is left up to you!") but Kasparov sports the highest 5-year peak at Chessmetrics by more than 20 points and leads all the other time period "peaks" except the one-year, which is occupied by the second choice of our poll:
Bobby Fischer, with 7 votes (23%)
Fischer's results, from the second half of Santa Monica 1966 (when he came from the rear to almost catch Spassky for first place) on through the fabled demolition of Spassky for the championship at Reykjavik, Iceland in 1972 are fully the equal of Kapsarov's, but Fischer suffers a little from the fact that he didn't play as much chess during this period as Kasparov did consistently during his active career. However, Fischer's crushing of Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky on his path to the World Championship 1971-2 by a cumulative score of 31-10 represents arguably the most dominant run against really strong players in chess history. Not counting a forfeit, his score of (+24, -3, =14) in these matches still seems like a dream.
There was a three-way tie for 3rd place between Lasker, Capablanca and Morphy with 3 votes (10%). Morphy represents a special case in that he only played one tournament and a few serious matches in a period of less than two years, yet his dominance was so great that he received 3 votes in our poll.
Lasker played chess only periodically through his life, and he probably suffers from that fact, but he gets high marks for being at the very top for about 30 years. Check out his tournament record!
As ChessAdmin noted in the comments, "It's hard to top Capablanca's domination of his contemporaries, in my view." The view of Capa's relative strength certainly suffers from his inability to play much with the world's best from 1914-18, due to World War I. If he had had a chance to score a few results of the caliber of London 1922 (+11, =4 against most of the top GMs) during those years he might have finished right there with Kasparov and Fischer.
Alekhine received just one vote, but his record after defeating Capablanca for the World Championship in 1927 was simply amazing. He didn't lose another tournament game for five years, and his result at Bled 1931 (+15, =11), 5.5 points clear of Bogoljubov and 6.5 ahead of the third place Nimzovich was an epic crush of historical proportions.
Tal and Karpov got zero votes. Tal's three-year run to the World Championship 1957-60 was awesome but perhaps too short, and Karpov's results from 1977-82 were dominant, but perhaps not as overwhelming as some of the others. I'll just note that in their all their World Championship matches Kasparov only scored 21 wins to Karpov's 19 with 104 draws.
So, to go back to the top, was Kasparov really so dominant after all?
After 10 days of voting on the (relatively) strongest chess player, here are the results and some comments.
Thirty-one votes were cast (thank you to all who took the time) and The Winner is:
Garry Kasparov, with 14 votes (45%)
 |
| Garry Kasparov |
Bobby Fischer, with 7 votes (23%)
 |
| Robert J. Fischer |
There was a three-way tie for 3rd place between Lasker, Capablanca and Morphy with 3 votes (10%). Morphy represents a special case in that he only played one tournament and a few serious matches in a period of less than two years, yet his dominance was so great that he received 3 votes in our poll.
Lasker played chess only periodically through his life, and he probably suffers from that fact, but he gets high marks for being at the very top for about 30 years. Check out his tournament record!
 |
| Emanuel Lasker |
 |
| Jose R. Capablanca |
 |
| Alexander Alekhine |
So, to go back to the top, was Kasparov really so dominant after all?
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Poll: (Relatively) Strongest Player
I've never had a poll here before, and thought this might be fun for those opinionated chess players out there...which is probably about 99% of us. I previously shared my thoughts on The Greatest and the Top Ten (including my criteria and reasoning). Probably we all agree that comparing players of different eras with each other is questionable, but this poll is of your opinion of the strongest player relative to his contemporaries. How to rank degree of dominance and length of time at the top is left up to you! I believe I've included all the obvious candidates but there is an "other" just in case. If you pick that I would like to see your choice in the comments. Your comments on why you chose a player are of course very much appreciated.
It could be that with the level of technology and technique we have now it will be almost impossible for anyone in the future to dominate like the players listed in the poll. We shall see.
And now, the nominees:
It could be that with the level of technology and technique we have now it will be almost impossible for anyone in the future to dominate like the players listed in the poll. We shall see.
And now, the nominees:
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Memorable Game 3: Update with Corrections
Bill Davis comments on my "Memorable Game 3" post:
Hi Robert, Good game as you deserved the win with your preparation. I'd have played out the game if I knew this would become your blog. I'd like to make a few corrections. No, I hadn't been drinking or something else. Also I had been a Master for two years at the time of the game. I do remember the disgust and frustration when I realized I had blundered away a pawn. I don't see the mate coming within ten moves as you stated. I saw a very difficult position and would probably drop the c-pawn too with your pressure. So leaving a mate on the board was my frustrated way of resigning. In hindsight I should have played on as now I have the experience of saving such games. Well done, hope you get the chance to beat another Master.
First, my sincere apologies to Bill for saying "[he] looked kind of distraught, or perhaps had been drinking or something...anyway, he didn't look happy to be there." I take his word that nothing unusual was going on except just one of those "moments" we've all experienced in chess.
Second, apologies for the inaccuracy on his achieving the USCF Master rating--I was going from memory there, as the USCF online records only go back to 1991.
When I said "I guess I was subconsciously giving him a chance to resign instead of getting mated inside of 10 moves, and he did" I was talking the position on the board after Bill's "resigning" by allowing mate. I think he's right, he should have played on; as I noted in the original post (you have to look at the ChessFlash game annotations there) White scored 46.5-4.5 from the position in the database, but Bill was and is a stronger player overall, and Black did manage two wins and a few draws after going down the pawn.
Thanks for commenting Bill, and again, apologies for the inaccuracies in my original account.
Hi Robert, Good game as you deserved the win with your preparation. I'd have played out the game if I knew this would become your blog. I'd like to make a few corrections. No, I hadn't been drinking or something else. Also I had been a Master for two years at the time of the game. I do remember the disgust and frustration when I realized I had blundered away a pawn. I don't see the mate coming within ten moves as you stated. I saw a very difficult position and would probably drop the c-pawn too with your pressure. So leaving a mate on the board was my frustrated way of resigning. In hindsight I should have played on as now I have the experience of saving such games. Well done, hope you get the chance to beat another Master.
First, my sincere apologies to Bill for saying "[he] looked kind of distraught, or perhaps had been drinking or something...anyway, he didn't look happy to be there." I take his word that nothing unusual was going on except just one of those "moments" we've all experienced in chess.
Second, apologies for the inaccuracy on his achieving the USCF Master rating--I was going from memory there, as the USCF online records only go back to 1991.
When I said "I guess I was subconsciously giving him a chance to resign instead of getting mated inside of 10 moves, and he did" I was talking the position on the board after Bill's "resigning" by allowing mate. I think he's right, he should have played on; as I noted in the original post (you have to look at the ChessFlash game annotations there) White scored 46.5-4.5 from the position in the database, but Bill was and is a stronger player overall, and Black did manage two wins and a few draws after going down the pawn.
Thanks for commenting Bill, and again, apologies for the inaccuracies in my original account.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Double Good, Double Fun Weekend
I can truly say I "lived it up" this weekend. I unloaded 6,000 pounds or so of household goods from a shipping container into my new residence, thereby getting my chess books back after six months in storage, and also managed to play my first rated chess games since last July.
I'll spare you the details of the moving part, let's go to the chess!
On Saturday the Juneau Chess Club had its first rated tournament since I arrived back in town, and due to work schedules and probably the fact that it was a glorious sunny day (not all that common here in Southeast Alaska) there were just three of us, Brian Bezenek, Russ McDowell and me. Well, Brian and Russ are both experienced tournament players and our ratings are within a couple hundred points of each other, so it turned out to be a pretty good match up.
I managed to win both games and thus the tournament, but not without some difficulties. We had the public library conference room for five hours, so we played at G/40, which is a quick enough time control to produce plenty of twists and turns. In the first round Brian played his usual King's Indian Attack as White against Russ, and after Russ went f5-f4 and opened the f-line...Brian proceeded to dominate it, won material and with mate coming up and a minute or so left on Brian's clock Russ resigned.
In round 2 it was my turn to play Russ. I had many games with him after I first came to Alaska over 20 years ago, and it was great to play him again, but early on it looked like the result would not be good, at least for me. As White in the King's Indian he played an unusual move, 5. Bd2. I recalled seeing this at least once before but whatever I had learned from that game two years ago didn't prevent me from getting outplayed; Russ trussed me up like a chicken, won the Exchange and threatened to trap my queen. Plus, he was at least five minutes ahead on the clock. At these fast time controls though, you gotta just keep trying, and he finally made a mistake that lost a couple of pawns, I got a lot of counterplay and I ended up queening a pawn and checkmating him with a minute or so left on the clock.
Whew.
In the third round I had White against Brian, and played into a Queen's Gambit where I castled 0-0-0 and pawn-stormed the king side. These types of positions always seem to be complex and nerve wracking, and this one was no execption. Brian defended pretty well and got three pawns for a piece while staving off the attack. Again, my opponenent was ahead a few minutes on the clock, but I forked the Exchange and emerged a rook to the good, and exected a two-rook stairstep checkmate with a minute or so left on my time.
Whew, again.
While it's nice to win, of course, I felt a little rusty and was definitely not playing "Real Chess" on each and every move. My game needs work; months of internet blitz and mostly casual club play have taken some of my edge off.
But's that's okay; it was just great to be back in action. Many thanks to Russ and Brian for showing up to play chess on a sunny day.
I'll post the games soon. Now that the great and powerful Glenn Wilson has made Chess Flash even easier, there's no excuse not to post every game for all the world to critique. And now that I have retrived from storage my box of game scores from the last couple of decades, readers are likely see one of my "best games" from the past here on occasion. I'll probably throw in some "worst games" for amusement, as well.
As TommyG would say, "Hope everyone had a great weekend!"
I'll spare you the details of the moving part, let's go to the chess!
On Saturday the Juneau Chess Club had its first rated tournament since I arrived back in town, and due to work schedules and probably the fact that it was a glorious sunny day (not all that common here in Southeast Alaska) there were just three of us, Brian Bezenek, Russ McDowell and me. Well, Brian and Russ are both experienced tournament players and our ratings are within a couple hundred points of each other, so it turned out to be a pretty good match up.
I managed to win both games and thus the tournament, but not without some difficulties. We had the public library conference room for five hours, so we played at G/40, which is a quick enough time control to produce plenty of twists and turns. In the first round Brian played his usual King's Indian Attack as White against Russ, and after Russ went f5-f4 and opened the f-line...Brian proceeded to dominate it, won material and with mate coming up and a minute or so left on Brian's clock Russ resigned.
In round 2 it was my turn to play Russ. I had many games with him after I first came to Alaska over 20 years ago, and it was great to play him again, but early on it looked like the result would not be good, at least for me. As White in the King's Indian he played an unusual move, 5. Bd2. I recalled seeing this at least once before but whatever I had learned from that game two years ago didn't prevent me from getting outplayed; Russ trussed me up like a chicken, won the Exchange and threatened to trap my queen. Plus, he was at least five minutes ahead on the clock. At these fast time controls though, you gotta just keep trying, and he finally made a mistake that lost a couple of pawns, I got a lot of counterplay and I ended up queening a pawn and checkmating him with a minute or so left on the clock.
Whew.
In the third round I had White against Brian, and played into a Queen's Gambit where I castled 0-0-0 and pawn-stormed the king side. These types of positions always seem to be complex and nerve wracking, and this one was no execption. Brian defended pretty well and got three pawns for a piece while staving off the attack. Again, my opponenent was ahead a few minutes on the clock, but I forked the Exchange and emerged a rook to the good, and exected a two-rook stairstep checkmate with a minute or so left on my time.
Whew, again.
While it's nice to win, of course, I felt a little rusty and was definitely not playing "Real Chess" on each and every move. My game needs work; months of internet blitz and mostly casual club play have taken some of my edge off.
But's that's okay; it was just great to be back in action. Many thanks to Russ and Brian for showing up to play chess on a sunny day.
I'll post the games soon. Now that the great and powerful Glenn Wilson has made Chess Flash even easier, there's no excuse not to post every game for all the world to critique. And now that I have retrived from storage my box of game scores from the last couple of decades, readers are likely see one of my "best games" from the past here on occasion. I'll probably throw in some "worst games" for amusement, as well.
As TommyG would say, "Hope everyone had a great weekend!"
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Three Points, One Position
The title of this post is meant to stimulate your interest by being a bit mysterious. Let me explain...
Muller and Lamprecht's excellent Fundamental Chess Endings gives this position as 4.16:
White to move
From Loginov-Loskutov 1996
Any serious chess player will recall playing positions similar to this one and how difficult it can be to win them even though a clear piece up.
So what are my "three points?"
1. I recently did a post on "What is a "Better" Position?" At a glance, Black is obviously "much" better, but is the position "won" for him? The conclusion of this game might make you rethink this terminology.
2. The end of the game will provide a position that all of us must know 100 percent stone cold in order to avoid endless heartache and tears for the rest of our careers.
3. It's been awhile since I did one of my Homer Nods posts ("...and yet I also become annoyed whenever the great Homer nods off." Horace, Ars Poetica). Even very good chess players sometimes play very bad chess, and examples of this can serve to encourage the rest of us, to say that maybe we shouldn't beat ourselves up over our own little blunders. In this case Black was an International Master trying to post a nice upset over a Grandmaster, and an IM should probably be able to win almost 100 percent of the time from this position.
Enough talk, let's go to the record. For convenience, here is the position again:
The first few moves are obvious: 1. Kh6 Bd3 2. Kg7 Bg6 3. f4 Kb2 4. Kf6 (if 4. f5 Bxf5 5. Kxf7 Kc3 -+) Kc3 5. f5 (diagram):
and now 5. ...Bh5 wins (and working out the variations is great exercise), but even if it only drew, I think that the choices are so limited most of us would play it right away; instead, 5. ... Kd4?? 6. fxg6 fxg6 7. Kg7 1-0 because after 7. ...Ke5 8. Kxh7 Kf5 9. Kh6:
Mutual zugzwang! Whoever is to move loses. Learn it, use it, LIVE IT! When pawns are locked in an ending, plan and scheme to get this position--with the right player to move, of course.
Going back to the first diagram, is there any way you would have thought an IM playing Black would be resigning after seven moves? Don't let it happen to you!
Muller and Lamprecht's excellent Fundamental Chess Endings gives this position as 4.16:
White to move
From Loginov-Loskutov 1996
Any serious chess player will recall playing positions similar to this one and how difficult it can be to win them even though a clear piece up.
So what are my "three points?"
1. I recently did a post on "What is a "Better" Position?" At a glance, Black is obviously "much" better, but is the position "won" for him? The conclusion of this game might make you rethink this terminology.
2. The end of the game will provide a position that all of us must know 100 percent stone cold in order to avoid endless heartache and tears for the rest of our careers.
3. It's been awhile since I did one of my Homer Nods posts ("...and yet I also become annoyed whenever the great Homer nods off." Horace, Ars Poetica). Even very good chess players sometimes play very bad chess, and examples of this can serve to encourage the rest of us, to say that maybe we shouldn't beat ourselves up over our own little blunders. In this case Black was an International Master trying to post a nice upset over a Grandmaster, and an IM should probably be able to win almost 100 percent of the time from this position.
Enough talk, let's go to the record. For convenience, here is the position again:
The first few moves are obvious: 1. Kh6 Bd3 2. Kg7 Bg6 3. f4 Kb2 4. Kf6 (if 4. f5 Bxf5 5. Kxf7 Kc3 -+) Kc3 5. f5 (diagram):
and now 5. ...Bh5 wins (and working out the variations is great exercise), but even if it only drew, I think that the choices are so limited most of us would play it right away; instead, 5. ... Kd4?? 6. fxg6 fxg6 7. Kg7 1-0 because after 7. ...Ke5 8. Kxh7 Kf5 9. Kh6:
Mutual zugzwang! Whoever is to move loses. Learn it, use it, LIVE IT! When pawns are locked in an ending, plan and scheme to get this position--with the right player to move, of course.
Going back to the first diagram, is there any way you would have thought an IM playing Black would be resigning after seven moves? Don't let it happen to you!
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
The Summer Doldrums
I haven't written a thing for over two weeks, here or at Eternity Road or anywhere. I've noticed a trend in that regard, with a lot of my favorite chess blogs rather inactive since the hot weather hit.
After I dropped playing late-night endurance chess at the Reno Chess Club I didn't have the same killer drive to write about and study chess, though I have played a couple of interesting games in the Tournament of the LEPers II. Last night I defeated Donnie, the Liquid Egg Product man himself, in a nice slugfest where I put the clamp on as Black against his King's Indian Attack, won a whole rook and then almost gave the game back when he threw the kitchen sink at me and I ran a little short of time.
The games in this tournament are played at G/15 + 30s/move, an excellent time control in my opinion, but I have been making the same kind of mental mistake that I sometimes made in the 30/90 G/60 time controls I was playing at the club--when time starts to get short but not really desperate, for example 10 minutes for six moves in the 30/90, instead of taking a minute or two for each move I rush out move 25 so I won't find myself with mere seconds at the end, and move 25 turns out to be a blunder. Saving a few minutes for after the blunder is not very effective! Last night I had around two minutes, plus the 30-second increment and was a rook up; all I had to do was take around 30 seconds a move and be cautious, but when I didn't see something pretty quickly I moved a knight where he could have just captured it! He missed that one, but hit me with a different combination that won some of the material back.
So that's something I need to work on.
I never wrote about it at the time, but in my first round game against Ivan of Getting to 2000 a couple of weeks ago I also had what was probably a winning position, it was complicated, but then some disturbances happened around the house and I made a bad move and resigned. One of the advantages of playing at a chess club is that you don't have to see your family during the game--or, if they did start talking to you, the rest of the club members would throw them out...ahem. Luckily, the family and I have worked out an arrangement that will strictly apply during all tournament games in the future.
Chess bloggers who have "gotten stuff done" recently include Likesforests, chessloser, Blunderprone, and the aforementioned Ivan (personal reports at the links), who played in the World Open in Philly over the 4th of July weekend. Here they are as listed, from left to right:
(photo credit Ivan)
Apparently all but Ivan had a plus score, and as you can see Likesforests took home a trophy for 5th place in the unrated section.
I wish I had been there too! I've not quit tournament chess, and I will be around for some of these future big events. In the meantime I look at these photos and pine...
(photo credit Likesforests)
I will post games soon. Really. I need to get back to Glenn Wilson's ChessFlash and get it set up! I need to get out my old games and share some of the best (and worst) as promised. I need to link to the excellent Likesforests on the sidebar and clean up the outdated stuff there. I need to get back to studying tactics and master games.
I also need a vacation.
Well, at least I wrote something today, even if it was just a disjointed patchwork of links to other people and had no coherence or theme whatsoever. The first step to chess master is learning how to mate with king and queen v. king. The first step to getting the blog back to something worthwhile is throwing something up on the wall.
After I dropped playing late-night endurance chess at the Reno Chess Club I didn't have the same killer drive to write about and study chess, though I have played a couple of interesting games in the Tournament of the LEPers II. Last night I defeated Donnie, the Liquid Egg Product man himself, in a nice slugfest where I put the clamp on as Black against his King's Indian Attack, won a whole rook and then almost gave the game back when he threw the kitchen sink at me and I ran a little short of time.
The games in this tournament are played at G/15 + 30s/move, an excellent time control in my opinion, but I have been making the same kind of mental mistake that I sometimes made in the 30/90 G/60 time controls I was playing at the club--when time starts to get short but not really desperate, for example 10 minutes for six moves in the 30/90, instead of taking a minute or two for each move I rush out move 25 so I won't find myself with mere seconds at the end, and move 25 turns out to be a blunder. Saving a few minutes for after the blunder is not very effective! Last night I had around two minutes, plus the 30-second increment and was a rook up; all I had to do was take around 30 seconds a move and be cautious, but when I didn't see something pretty quickly I moved a knight where he could have just captured it! He missed that one, but hit me with a different combination that won some of the material back.
So that's something I need to work on.
I never wrote about it at the time, but in my first round game against Ivan of Getting to 2000 a couple of weeks ago I also had what was probably a winning position, it was complicated, but then some disturbances happened around the house and I made a bad move and resigned. One of the advantages of playing at a chess club is that you don't have to see your family during the game--or, if they did start talking to you, the rest of the club members would throw them out...ahem. Luckily, the family and I have worked out an arrangement that will strictly apply during all tournament games in the future.
Chess bloggers who have "gotten stuff done" recently include Likesforests, chessloser, Blunderprone, and the aforementioned Ivan (personal reports at the links), who played in the World Open in Philly over the 4th of July weekend. Here they are as listed, from left to right:
(photo credit Ivan)
Apparently all but Ivan had a plus score, and as you can see Likesforests took home a trophy for 5th place in the unrated section.
I wish I had been there too! I've not quit tournament chess, and I will be around for some of these future big events. In the meantime I look at these photos and pine...
(photo credit Likesforests)
I will post games soon. Really. I need to get back to Glenn Wilson's ChessFlash and get it set up! I need to get out my old games and share some of the best (and worst) as promised. I need to link to the excellent Likesforests on the sidebar and clean up the outdated stuff there. I need to get back to studying tactics and master games.
I also need a vacation.
Well, at least I wrote something today, even if it was just a disjointed patchwork of links to other people and had no coherence or theme whatsoever. The first step to chess master is learning how to mate with king and queen v. king. The first step to getting the blog back to something worthwhile is throwing something up on the wall.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Far West Open Results are Up!
(Full results and cross tables with ratings from USCF)
Entries to the 8th edition of this event were up by 9 from 2007 to a record 193!
(USCF website coverage by Michael Aigner)
While I didn't play in this one, it was a big deal for chess in Reno and chess out West, so I thought I'd follow up on my earlier post.
In addition to the various tournament reports I noted there (Chris "ChargingKing" Harrington and Ernie "Soapstone" Hong) we now have updates from Kevin "drunknknite" Gafni and chessloser (while the others are well-known Reno players, chessloser wishes to remain pseudonymous due to the probability that he will have to resume protecting us from Evil Forces someday. If you've got some real skillz you might be able to deduce something. You would only be peeling one layer of the onion, however). You might want to check out the above player's main pages for games from the event (except for chessloser, who manages to get all of his desired game reports in one post).
Chessloser also managed to interview the winner of the Open section, GM Melikset Khachiyan. The rest of us just stood around with our thumbs up our asses.
That's why chessloser is THE MAN.
(Photo credit: chessloser)
And Michael Aigner provides this photo on the CalChess website:
OUR THANKS TO ERNEST C. HONG--Chess Expert, Organizer, Webmaster and long suffering Director of the Reno Club Championship!
Entries to the 8th edition of this event were up by 9 from 2007 to a record 193!
(USCF website coverage by Michael Aigner)
While I didn't play in this one, it was a big deal for chess in Reno and chess out West, so I thought I'd follow up on my earlier post.
In addition to the various tournament reports I noted there (Chris "ChargingKing" Harrington and Ernie "Soapstone" Hong) we now have updates from Kevin "drunknknite" Gafni and chessloser (while the others are well-known Reno players, chessloser wishes to remain pseudonymous due to the probability that he will have to resume protecting us from Evil Forces someday. If you've got some real skillz you might be able to deduce something. You would only be peeling one layer of the onion, however). You might want to check out the above player's main pages for games from the event (except for chessloser, who manages to get all of his desired game reports in one post).
Chessloser also managed to interview the winner of the Open section, GM Melikset Khachiyan. The rest of us just stood around with our thumbs up our asses.
That's why chessloser is THE MAN.
(Photo credit: chessloser)
And Michael Aigner provides this photo on the CalChess website:
OUR THANKS TO ERNEST C. HONG--Chess Expert, Organizer, Webmaster and long suffering Director of the Reno Club Championship!
Monday, February 25, 2008
A Respected Opponent
Back when I posted this game from Round 4 of the 2007 Western States Open I had no idea that my opponent, Gordon Barrett (now of Las Vegas) was known as "Mr. Chess" for many years in Southern California and is a member of the California Chess Hall of Fame. Of course, had I known I still would have done everything in my power to defeat him, but it gives some context to the game that I enjoy.
I also had no idea that he was 86 years old. I would have guessed him between 70 and 75. If anyone who reads this knows him, tell him I said that!
I also had no idea that he was 86 years old. I would have guessed him between 70 and 75. If anyone who reads this knows him, tell him I said that!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Miscellany
Instead of doing several brief, disconnected posts here are my latest thoughts in one neat package:
I was pleased that several readers commented with their disagreements regarding my list of the 10 greatest chess players of all time. Some follow-up comments from me--the rankings are subjective, of course, so it's my personal idiosyncratic list; but for background, R. Fischer is at #4 only because of the brevity of his international career. If he had played on at that level for another 10-15 years he would be neck-and-neck with Kasparov for #1. One of the great difficulties of comparing players of different eras is that they play so many more tournaments with just top players these days, compared to less frequent "mixed" tournaments prior to the 1980s. Steinitz and Lasker went through long stretches with no tournament play at all. Morphy was unique in both the brilliance and brevity of his career, so it is very difficult to compare him with others. Kramnik's defeat of Kasparov in a match was a big reason he made it, and Anand has consistently performed at the very top for about 20 years, so that was my reasoning for making them #9 and 10. But all this is subject to enjoyable debate. It was difficult not to find a place for Smyslov, Korchnoi, Steinitz and Morphy, but there could only be 10 in the top 10, after all...
I had a nice bump in traffic when Mark Weeks over at chess.about.com listed me in his 2007 Chess Blog Awards and it was also picked up by Susan Polgar's Chess Blog. I'm very pleased that Mr. Weeks found 27 of my 2007 posts to be worthy of (any) attention. Thanks!
Mark also has a post at Chess for All Ages beginning a series comparing Fischer's (My 60 Memorable Games) and Kasparov's (My Great Predecessors IV) comments on 18 games from the former book. I look forward to seeing these, since differences of opinion make for the most interesting annotations.
I was also very pleasantly surprised when Francis W. Porretto published my game against Vern Young (my post here) on his excellent (and heavyweight) blog Eternity Road, which is dedicated to philosophy, politics, religion, the survival of Western Civilization and, occasionally, chess. Fran is an enthusiast (and mentor to Fetiche, [a game of hers is here]) and in general a Renaissance man, and I thank him for taking the time to publish and annotate the game.
Chessloser speculates that vampires are awesome at chess. I find his reasoning totally convincing.
Finally, obligatory chess-related photograph:
Make of it what you will and have a great night.
I was pleased that several readers commented with their disagreements regarding my list of the 10 greatest chess players of all time. Some follow-up comments from me--the rankings are subjective, of course, so it's my personal idiosyncratic list; but for background, R. Fischer is at #4 only because of the brevity of his international career. If he had played on at that level for another 10-15 years he would be neck-and-neck with Kasparov for #1. One of the great difficulties of comparing players of different eras is that they play so many more tournaments with just top players these days, compared to less frequent "mixed" tournaments prior to the 1980s. Steinitz and Lasker went through long stretches with no tournament play at all. Morphy was unique in both the brilliance and brevity of his career, so it is very difficult to compare him with others. Kramnik's defeat of Kasparov in a match was a big reason he made it, and Anand has consistently performed at the very top for about 20 years, so that was my reasoning for making them #9 and 10. But all this is subject to enjoyable debate. It was difficult not to find a place for Smyslov, Korchnoi, Steinitz and Morphy, but there could only be 10 in the top 10, after all...
I had a nice bump in traffic when Mark Weeks over at chess.about.com listed me in his 2007 Chess Blog Awards and it was also picked up by Susan Polgar's Chess Blog. I'm very pleased that Mr. Weeks found 27 of my 2007 posts to be worthy of (any) attention. Thanks!
Mark also has a post at Chess for All Ages beginning a series comparing Fischer's (My 60 Memorable Games) and Kasparov's (My Great Predecessors IV) comments on 18 games from the former book. I look forward to seeing these, since differences of opinion make for the most interesting annotations.
I was also very pleasantly surprised when Francis W. Porretto published my game against Vern Young (my post here) on his excellent (and heavyweight) blog Eternity Road, which is dedicated to philosophy, politics, religion, the survival of Western Civilization and, occasionally, chess. Fran is an enthusiast (and mentor to Fetiche, [a game of hers is here]) and in general a Renaissance man, and I thank him for taking the time to publish and annotate the game.
Chessloser speculates that vampires are awesome at chess. I find his reasoning totally convincing.
Finally, obligatory chess-related photograph:
Make of it what you will and have a great night.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Controversy Corner
I'll be gone on another trip through Monday, not sure if I'll have a chance to blog any, so here's something that I hope will spur some controversy and commentary over the weekend; I had recently linked back to an old post on The Greatest, wherein I identified my choices for the greatest chess players ever, in certain categories.
Now, for your edification and especially your criticism, my ordered list of The Top 10 Chess Players of All Time, using the following criteria: 1) Their accomplishments as players, that is, results in tournaments and matches; 2) Relative dominance over their contemporaries for at least a few years; 3) Longevity at the top; 4) Advancement of the art of chess through the example of their play. That these criteria are based partly on subjective judgment makes it all the more fun to debate, of course. How to compare different eras? Subjective!
Other notes--I considered leaving off players who are still active, but a couple deserve to be on here just for what they've done so far, so they might move up over the coming years. I also considered a brief paragraph of justification for the inclusion of and order of the players, but it's more fun if you have to speculate about my reasons and provide your own when telling me how full of it I am. So, here is the bare list:
1. Kasparov
2. Capablanca
3. Karpov
4. Fischer
5. Alekhine
6. Botvinnik
7. Lasker
8. Tal
9. Kramnik
10. Anand
Please share your differences in the comments!
(ADDENDUM: I understand Fischer has passed away, the news is all over the MSM and chess blogosphere; I'm saddened that he's dead, of course, and also that much of his titanic talent and intellect seemingly went to waste over the last three decades).
Now, for your edification and especially your criticism, my ordered list of The Top 10 Chess Players of All Time, using the following criteria: 1) Their accomplishments as players, that is, results in tournaments and matches; 2) Relative dominance over their contemporaries for at least a few years; 3) Longevity at the top; 4) Advancement of the art of chess through the example of their play. That these criteria are based partly on subjective judgment makes it all the more fun to debate, of course. How to compare different eras? Subjective!
Other notes--I considered leaving off players who are still active, but a couple deserve to be on here just for what they've done so far, so they might move up over the coming years. I also considered a brief paragraph of justification for the inclusion of and order of the players, but it's more fun if you have to speculate about my reasons and provide your own when telling me how full of it I am. So, here is the bare list:
1. Kasparov
2. Capablanca
3. Karpov
4. Fischer
5. Alekhine
6. Botvinnik
7. Lasker
8. Tal
9. Kramnik
10. Anand
Please share your differences in the comments!
(ADDENDUM: I understand Fischer has passed away, the news is all over the MSM and chess blogosphere; I'm saddened that he's dead, of course, and also that much of his titanic talent and intellect seemingly went to waste over the last three decades).
Friday, January 11, 2008
I Did It!
As I noted yesterday I figured last night's first round (for me) of the Reno CC Class B Ch. would be a big challenge, given the circumstances. I'm happy to report that I met the challenge, and WON!
Here's how it went down; I was playing Vern Young and had never met him over the board, he's rated about 100 points higher than me, and by yesterday afternoon I was undergoing biological warfare, that is I had a cold so heavy that my frickin' teeth hurt. But this is a round robin and the show must go on, unless perhaps one is hospitalized.
So I go home after work and pop a few ibuprofen one hour before game time--I'd avoided them all day so that the effect would be maximized for the game. I eat a nice hot chicken pot pie and by the time I get there I feel somewhat better, still not good, but it was the contrast I was going for...
Anyway, the game starts, he meets my 1. d4 with f5, the Dutch, I meet it with pretty standard stuff, just playing fairly quickly to conserve energy. I must say I'm not seeing a lot, my expectations are fairly low, I'm just trying to do my best under the circumstances. Early in the middlegame I do make some inaccurate moves, and he plays a combination that wins Rook for Bishop--I see it one move too late. Here's the funny thing, though; as sometimes happens, the white-square Bishop I have left is unopposed by the one he had to give up to win the Exchange, and it soon becomes a monster, planted on e6 basically cutting his position in half, and a few moves later he offers back the Exchange and simultaneously offers a draw.
I think hard as I ponder the position--a draw would be good tournament tactics under the circumstances, I'd love to pack up and go home early with a draw in the score table...and yet, and yet, I look at the position after I regain the Exchange and realize I'm much better, his Kingside is weak and my pieces get into play before his, so I suck it up and make the move. I'm now feeling like I'm thinking a lot clearer than earlier, too! A few moves later he's completely tied up, and I get to play the "Excelsior" theme; d6, d7, d8 on consecutive moves, and he could lose a Bishop and stop it but he chooses to let it Queen, I'm a Queen up and shortly he's mated in two. Black resigned.
Win or lose, I resolved to be happy with having the courage of my convictions, and it worked out with a win.
One more thing--this guy is one of those players who tends to make faces and noises during the game; sighs, a snort when I blundered, he took off his hat a few times and held it up above his head while thinking then "accidentally' dropped it. All of this was on his time, so I couldn't care less--I'm from the school of don't give the opponent any hints as to what you're thinking. As I say, he didn't do it on my time so no biggie. We had a brief postmortem that was a little strange, when he said "I was watching your eyes and you were just playing 'move to move' for part of the game!" Probably true, but he didn't explain why he had gotten squashed at the end...anyway, I just let him conduct the postmortem for my benefit.
Next week I'm playing my dentist, Hadi Soltani--I have a good record against him but he's pumped up his rating quite a bit in the last year, swept Class C with a perfect score in 2007. I'll be on the alert, and feeling better I'm sure. I'm just soooo happy to be back in the tournament hall!
I'll post this game sometime in the next few days--it's not a masterpiece for sure, but the result was good. By the way, thanks much to Rocky Rook and Happyhippo for the encouraging words yesterday!
Here's how it went down; I was playing Vern Young and had never met him over the board, he's rated about 100 points higher than me, and by yesterday afternoon I was undergoing biological warfare, that is I had a cold so heavy that my frickin' teeth hurt. But this is a round robin and the show must go on, unless perhaps one is hospitalized.
So I go home after work and pop a few ibuprofen one hour before game time--I'd avoided them all day so that the effect would be maximized for the game. I eat a nice hot chicken pot pie and by the time I get there I feel somewhat better, still not good, but it was the contrast I was going for...
Anyway, the game starts, he meets my 1. d4 with f5, the Dutch, I meet it with pretty standard stuff, just playing fairly quickly to conserve energy. I must say I'm not seeing a lot, my expectations are fairly low, I'm just trying to do my best under the circumstances. Early in the middlegame I do make some inaccurate moves, and he plays a combination that wins Rook for Bishop--I see it one move too late. Here's the funny thing, though; as sometimes happens, the white-square Bishop I have left is unopposed by the one he had to give up to win the Exchange, and it soon becomes a monster, planted on e6 basically cutting his position in half, and a few moves later he offers back the Exchange and simultaneously offers a draw.
I think hard as I ponder the position--a draw would be good tournament tactics under the circumstances, I'd love to pack up and go home early with a draw in the score table...and yet, and yet, I look at the position after I regain the Exchange and realize I'm much better, his Kingside is weak and my pieces get into play before his, so I suck it up and make the move. I'm now feeling like I'm thinking a lot clearer than earlier, too! A few moves later he's completely tied up, and I get to play the "Excelsior" theme; d6, d7, d8 on consecutive moves, and he could lose a Bishop and stop it but he chooses to let it Queen, I'm a Queen up and shortly he's mated in two. Black resigned.
Win or lose, I resolved to be happy with having the courage of my convictions, and it worked out with a win.
One more thing--this guy is one of those players who tends to make faces and noises during the game; sighs, a snort when I blundered, he took off his hat a few times and held it up above his head while thinking then "accidentally' dropped it. All of this was on his time, so I couldn't care less--I'm from the school of don't give the opponent any hints as to what you're thinking. As I say, he didn't do it on my time so no biggie. We had a brief postmortem that was a little strange, when he said "I was watching your eyes and you were just playing 'move to move' for part of the game!" Probably true, but he didn't explain why he had gotten squashed at the end...anyway, I just let him conduct the postmortem for my benefit.
Next week I'm playing my dentist, Hadi Soltani--I have a good record against him but he's pumped up his rating quite a bit in the last year, swept Class C with a perfect score in 2007. I'll be on the alert, and feeling better I'm sure. I'm just soooo happy to be back in the tournament hall!
I'll post this game sometime in the next few days--it's not a masterpiece for sure, but the result was good. By the way, thanks much to Rocky Rook and Happyhippo for the encouraging words yesterday!
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Suzyq Where Are You?
Someone who signed themselves "suzyq" (looks like a brand new Blogger account) commented yesterday on my post of last March looking for information on Ron Thacker, my one-time roommate who played Bobby Fischer in the 1957 U.S. Junior Ch. (see the whole fascinating saga here).
I read your article and was amazed. Ron has been a friend of mine since around 84. I believe I have his address and phone number, (he was still in Vegas)if he is still living. He has a serious heart condition which has put him on a disability. Yes, he was a very smart guy. I didn't realize it for a long time. I often didn't believe things he told me until years passed and they were proven to be true. I think I actually met you years ago in Reno, also. Very interesting. I doubt he copied any moves from anyone. He is truly an original.
Thanks very much, suzyq, for the info--if you read this, can you send me the contact info that you mention? It would make a very satisfactory conclusion to my search if I could either track him down, or even close the loop by verifying that he's passed on.
I read your article and was amazed. Ron has been a friend of mine since around 84. I believe I have his address and phone number, (he was still in Vegas)if he is still living. He has a serious heart condition which has put him on a disability. Yes, he was a very smart guy. I didn't realize it for a long time. I often didn't believe things he told me until years passed and they were proven to be true. I think I actually met you years ago in Reno, also. Very interesting. I doubt he copied any moves from anyone. He is truly an original.
Thanks very much, suzyq, for the info--if you read this, can you send me the contact info that you mention? It would make a very satisfactory conclusion to my search if I could either track him down, or even close the loop by verifying that he's passed on.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Secrets of a Grandpatzer, Part 4
(Part 1)(Part 2)(Part 3)
As we continue this series on Dr. Kenneth Mark Colby's rare book Secrets of a Grandpatzer I thought that for a change I'd give an example of his play, a game I especially enjoy because the final position is so aesthetically pleasing:
Now that's what they mean when they talk about piece coordination!
And here's the whole game (or fragment--White may have staggered on for a few moves) with the author's notes. If you want to play the King's Indian, always be alert to the Nxe4 shot when the White King is stuck in the center. It occurs in a lot of different variations:
As we continue this series on Dr. Kenneth Mark Colby's rare book Secrets of a Grandpatzer I thought that for a change I'd give an example of his play, a game I especially enjoy because the final position is so aesthetically pleasing:
Now that's what they mean when they talk about piece coordination!
And here's the whole game (or fragment--White may have staggered on for a few moves) with the author's notes. If you want to play the King's Indian, always be alert to the Nxe4 shot when the White King is stuck in the center. It occurs in a lot of different variations:
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
A Fair Question
Drunknknite was kind enough to follow the link in my last post back to my Feb. 2006 thoughts on The Greatest. He asks:
In your greatest post where is Botvinnik??
For some reason he is overlooked, even though he is the one who propelled technique and the form of scientific analysis we apply to this game to the forefront of theory. He was also 'dominant' from 1946 until 1957 (probably even later than this). In spite of the fact that Bronstein and Smyslov were right on his heels, he still showed his superiority to the great masters of his time.
As great a player as Botvinnik was, I must respectfully disagree with part of this comment. If I were to have included a list of the "Top Ten" chess players of all time, M. Botvinnik would probably have merited a place on it; but in the particular categories of my rather idiosyncratic list I couldn't justify including him. He truly was dominant in the 1948 World Championship Tournament, but then didn't play any public chess for three years, and his record in the World Ch. matches he played in 1951-63 was basically 50-50. If you will refer to his tournament and match record here you'll see that he played fairly sparingly as World Champion, had a number of very good results and a few mediocre ones in strong tournaments, but never had the kind of almost unbeatable of 4-7 years that was noted in my original post for Alekhine, Tal, Fischer et al.
It certainly hurt Botvinnik that four or five of what might have been his dominant years were 1941-45 when the Soviet Union was locked in a death struggle with Germany and international chess life was disrupted. If he had gotten a chance to play in a World Championship match and a few strong international events during those years his reputation as a great player might be even greater.
For these reasons, Botvinnik didn't make any of the lists in my original post but I'm happy to agree with drunknknite that he deserves recognition as one of the all-time greats.
In your greatest post where is Botvinnik??
For some reason he is overlooked, even though he is the one who propelled technique and the form of scientific analysis we apply to this game to the forefront of theory. He was also 'dominant' from 1946 until 1957 (probably even later than this). In spite of the fact that Bronstein and Smyslov were right on his heels, he still showed his superiority to the great masters of his time.
As great a player as Botvinnik was, I must respectfully disagree with part of this comment. If I were to have included a list of the "Top Ten" chess players of all time, M. Botvinnik would probably have merited a place on it; but in the particular categories of my rather idiosyncratic list I couldn't justify including him. He truly was dominant in the 1948 World Championship Tournament, but then didn't play any public chess for three years, and his record in the World Ch. matches he played in 1951-63 was basically 50-50. If you will refer to his tournament and match record here you'll see that he played fairly sparingly as World Champion, had a number of very good results and a few mediocre ones in strong tournaments, but never had the kind of almost unbeatable of 4-7 years that was noted in my original post for Alekhine, Tal, Fischer et al.
It certainly hurt Botvinnik that four or five of what might have been his dominant years were 1941-45 when the Soviet Union was locked in a death struggle with Germany and international chess life was disrupted. If he had gotten a chance to play in a World Championship match and a few strong international events during those years his reputation as a great player might be even greater.
For these reasons, Botvinnik didn't make any of the lists in my original post but I'm happy to agree with drunknknite that he deserves recognition as one of the all-time greats.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"Secrets of a Grandpatzer" (Part 3)
(After straying seriously from the chess focus of this blog, though in a very enjoyable way, we now resume our regularly scheduled programming)
(Part 1) (Part 2)
Preface: For those readers new to this series, Dr. Kenneth Mark Colby, M.D. (Dr. G), was a Professor of Psychiatry and a leading researcher in the field of Artificial Intelligence until his passing in 2001 at the age of 81. In 1979 he published Secrets of a Grandpatzer: How to Beat Most People and Computers at Chess. Though I present some highlights here, I want to clarify that I don't necessarily endorse all of his advice, especially the part about memorizing openings (see Part 2). Since this is a book that few readers will have a chance to look at, however, I do my best to present excerpts of his material without too much editorializing of my own.
Part III of the book is headed "How to Play," and covers Thinking, Nerves, Pressures, Clocks and Conduct in mostly brief chapters. Some nuggets for your consideration:
HOW TO THINK
Depth of analysis counts for little among patzers and grandpatzers. It is accuracy of calculation which counts. Unless the moves are forced there is no point in looking deeper than 6-8 ply (half moves) because there are too many possibilities for flaws in the analysis.
In many positions there is no best move, and a modest one suffices, especially if it restrains or frustrates your opponent's intentions.
The lack of sustained will-power and the making of "what-the-hell" moves is another reason one does not become a master.
NERVES
Speaking of being nervous and being drunk, I have found it useful to be slightly swacked at the start of a game...I know this is heresy...but I advise a few drinks before a serious game. This is hard to do when the game begins in the morning but afternoon and evening games are ideal for this opportunity.
Computers do not evaluate people from their appearances an neither should you. It is a very dangerous thing to do for reasons I will now spell out. The greatest psychological danger for the aspiring grandpatzer lies in playing the ego-game.
Nobody wants to be a nobody. It is precarious to use chess as a way to defeat a sense of nobodiness.
Some booked-up teenagers are the best examples of contempt-in-action...The way to get an edge on them is to increase their conceit and disdain for you by acting as bumbling as possible.
PRESSURES
To be a master one needs good physical and mental stamina. But health, mental or physical, is not necessary for the grandpatzer.If you look at a group of us in a chess club tournament, you will observe what wrecks we are...Having problems is not the problem; it's what you do in spite of them that counts. To rise above physical illness and pain, to strive for your best in spite of these distressful states, represents a challenge for the aspiring grandpatzer with artistic goals.
Tenacity and resourcefulness are the marks of the grandpatzer. He hangs in there for a long time knowing there exists a great variety of hidden possibilities in every position.
CLOCKS
Once during a tournament, an old guy fell over backwards in his chair. As I was trying to get his pulse (he was dead), a true chessplayer rushed up to the board shouting "Stop his clock, stop his clock!" (Article 14.6). The ending to this funny-not-so-funny story is that a few years later this same chessplayer died of a coronary during a tournament game.
CONDUCT
There is more to chess than moving the pieces.
Chess is play, a game having its own reality. We can obliterate one everyday reality, not by dimming awareness, but by intensity of concentration in another.
I hope your artistic goal in studying the teachings and preachings of this book is to improve your play in an enjoyable way.
***
(In Part 4 we'll look at Dr. G's advice on playing Young Guys, Old Guys, Women and Masters, plus How to Beat Computers, 1979 version, by an expert in the field).
(Part 1) (Part 2)
Preface: For those readers new to this series, Dr. Kenneth Mark Colby, M.D. (Dr. G), was a Professor of Psychiatry and a leading researcher in the field of Artificial Intelligence until his passing in 2001 at the age of 81. In 1979 he published Secrets of a Grandpatzer: How to Beat Most People and Computers at Chess. Though I present some highlights here, I want to clarify that I don't necessarily endorse all of his advice, especially the part about memorizing openings (see Part 2). Since this is a book that few readers will have a chance to look at, however, I do my best to present excerpts of his material without too much editorializing of my own.
Part III of the book is headed "How to Play," and covers Thinking, Nerves, Pressures, Clocks and Conduct in mostly brief chapters. Some nuggets for your consideration:
HOW TO THINK
Depth of analysis counts for little among patzers and grandpatzers. It is accuracy of calculation which counts. Unless the moves are forced there is no point in looking deeper than 6-8 ply (half moves) because there are too many possibilities for flaws in the analysis.
In many positions there is no best move, and a modest one suffices, especially if it restrains or frustrates your opponent's intentions.
The lack of sustained will-power and the making of "what-the-hell" moves is another reason one does not become a master.
NERVES
Speaking of being nervous and being drunk, I have found it useful to be slightly swacked at the start of a game...I know this is heresy...but I advise a few drinks before a serious game. This is hard to do when the game begins in the morning but afternoon and evening games are ideal for this opportunity.
Computers do not evaluate people from their appearances an neither should you. It is a very dangerous thing to do for reasons I will now spell out. The greatest psychological danger for the aspiring grandpatzer lies in playing the ego-game.
Nobody wants to be a nobody. It is precarious to use chess as a way to defeat a sense of nobodiness.
Some booked-up teenagers are the best examples of contempt-in-action...The way to get an edge on them is to increase their conceit and disdain for you by acting as bumbling as possible.
PRESSURES
To be a master one needs good physical and mental stamina. But health, mental or physical, is not necessary for the grandpatzer.If you look at a group of us in a chess club tournament, you will observe what wrecks we are...Having problems is not the problem; it's what you do in spite of them that counts. To rise above physical illness and pain, to strive for your best in spite of these distressful states, represents a challenge for the aspiring grandpatzer with artistic goals.
Tenacity and resourcefulness are the marks of the grandpatzer. He hangs in there for a long time knowing there exists a great variety of hidden possibilities in every position.
CLOCKS
Once during a tournament, an old guy fell over backwards in his chair. As I was trying to get his pulse (he was dead), a true chessplayer rushed up to the board shouting "Stop his clock, stop his clock!" (Article 14.6). The ending to this funny-not-so-funny story is that a few years later this same chessplayer died of a coronary during a tournament game.
CONDUCT
There is more to chess than moving the pieces.
Chess is play, a game having its own reality. We can obliterate one everyday reality, not by dimming awareness, but by intensity of concentration in another.
I hope your artistic goal in studying the teachings and preachings of this book is to improve your play in an enjoyable way.
***
(In Part 4 we'll look at Dr. G's advice on playing Young Guys, Old Guys, Women and Masters, plus How to Beat Computers, 1979 version, by an expert in the field).
Friday, December 07, 2007
"Secrets of a Grandpatzer" (Part 2)
(Part 1 here)
As I noted in Part 1, this book was written by Kenneth Mark Colby, a Professor of Psychiatry who also worked in the field of artificial intelligence (interesting paper on artificial belief systems here). He also had a great sense of humor and really enjoyed life and chess, if the book is any indication.
Having previously covered the Introduction, let's get to the meat:
After floundering around as a 1600 patzer for 3-4 years, I decided to do something about it. In those doings, I developed, and utilized the herein described heuristics to raise my USCF rating to 1800+ in a year of weekly rating tournaments...Being of generous disposition, I am now passing these secrets on to you so you too can become a grandpatzer. Why should I reveal these secrets? Because now that I have become a grandpatzer, I don't need them anymore. (I need new ones.)
Colby thinks studying master games annotated by masters is (mostly) a waste of time. To briefly sum up, his road to grandpatzership emphasizes pattern recognition, specializing in and memorizing a few openings (yes, memorizing. More on that shortly) and tactics training. The part where he diverges from most other books and authorities is in his opening advice. I described it briefly back in my first post on opening study, but let's let the man speak for himself:
The major area where an aspiring grandpatzer can profit from master practice is in the opening, regardless of what masters say about memorizing. Play only opening systems which current masters repeatedly use because they are constantly being improved for you through tournament play...By studying these systems and your pet critical variations of them, you simply memorize, as far as you can, what the best current continuations are...
A lot different from most advice we "class" players get! Colby recommends the King's Indian and Sicilian Dragon (though my earlier post did point out some possible problems with his approach). His point is to get a middlegame you are familiar with and, perhaps just as critical, preserve clock time and mental energy for playing said middlegame. As long as you're within your "book" you just put out your memorized moves.
I do think that whatever objections one may come up with, this is very practical advice; the more I play tournament chess the more I believe that avoiding time trouble and maintaining focus through proper periods of concentration and relaxation is a vital part of good results. For example, at the Reno Chess Club we play a lot of 30/90, G/60 time controls; getting to move 10 in couple of minutes on the clock allows almost 90 minutes for 20 middlegame moves. Could be helpful...
Colby's other great emphasis in his "How to Study" section of the book is tactical exercises--"Hence I will recommend study of this aspect of the game above all others." He seems to have done the equivalent of de la Maza's "Seven Circles" with Fred Reinfeld's 1001 Brilliant Sacrifices and Combinations. At least there's one thing everybody agrees on; study tactics, tactics and more tactics.
Finally for this part, some more sage advice:
The great problem with all study is TIME. You have a job, family, friends, dogs, plants, other pastimes. You are lucky if you can study 3-4 hours a week. The trick is to concentrate and use TIME efficiently...I spend much of my TIME trying to overcome this (combinational weakness) by studying diagrams in which a winning combination lurks. I study current variations in my pet openings as they occur in the literature. I now study only those endings that my own games lead to. Everyone has to find a way to distribute study-time. Playing time is distributed for you.
(In Part 3 we'll look at Dr. G's advice on "How to Play")
As I noted in Part 1, this book was written by Kenneth Mark Colby, a Professor of Psychiatry who also worked in the field of artificial intelligence (interesting paper on artificial belief systems here). He also had a great sense of humor and really enjoyed life and chess, if the book is any indication.
Having previously covered the Introduction, let's get to the meat:
After floundering around as a 1600 patzer for 3-4 years, I decided to do something about it. In those doings, I developed, and utilized the herein described heuristics to raise my USCF rating to 1800+ in a year of weekly rating tournaments...Being of generous disposition, I am now passing these secrets on to you so you too can become a grandpatzer. Why should I reveal these secrets? Because now that I have become a grandpatzer, I don't need them anymore. (I need new ones.)
Colby thinks studying master games annotated by masters is (mostly) a waste of time. To briefly sum up, his road to grandpatzership emphasizes pattern recognition, specializing in and memorizing a few openings (yes, memorizing. More on that shortly) and tactics training. The part where he diverges from most other books and authorities is in his opening advice. I described it briefly back in my first post on opening study, but let's let the man speak for himself:
The major area where an aspiring grandpatzer can profit from master practice is in the opening, regardless of what masters say about memorizing. Play only opening systems which current masters repeatedly use because they are constantly being improved for you through tournament play...By studying these systems and your pet critical variations of them, you simply memorize, as far as you can, what the best current continuations are...
A lot different from most advice we "class" players get! Colby recommends the King's Indian and Sicilian Dragon (though my earlier post did point out some possible problems with his approach). His point is to get a middlegame you are familiar with and, perhaps just as critical, preserve clock time and mental energy for playing said middlegame. As long as you're within your "book" you just put out your memorized moves.
I do think that whatever objections one may come up with, this is very practical advice; the more I play tournament chess the more I believe that avoiding time trouble and maintaining focus through proper periods of concentration and relaxation is a vital part of good results. For example, at the Reno Chess Club we play a lot of 30/90, G/60 time controls; getting to move 10 in couple of minutes on the clock allows almost 90 minutes for 20 middlegame moves. Could be helpful...
Colby's other great emphasis in his "How to Study" section of the book is tactical exercises--"Hence I will recommend study of this aspect of the game above all others." He seems to have done the equivalent of de la Maza's "Seven Circles" with Fred Reinfeld's 1001 Brilliant Sacrifices and Combinations. At least there's one thing everybody agrees on; study tactics, tactics and more tactics.
Finally for this part, some more sage advice:
The great problem with all study is TIME. You have a job, family, friends, dogs, plants, other pastimes. You are lucky if you can study 3-4 hours a week. The trick is to concentrate and use TIME efficiently...I spend much of my TIME trying to overcome this (combinational weakness) by studying diagrams in which a winning combination lurks. I study current variations in my pet openings as they occur in the literature. I now study only those endings that my own games lead to. Everyone has to find a way to distribute study-time. Playing time is distributed for you.
(In Part 3 we'll look at Dr. G's advice on "How to Play")
Monday, December 03, 2007
"Secrets of a Grandpatzer" (Part 1)
Secrets of a Grandpatzer is a very interesting book that was published back in 1979, interesting both for the subject matter and for the author, Kenneth Mark Colby, a Professor of both Psychiatry and Computer Science at UCLA. Dr. Colby had a lot of valuable things to say about chess and chess players, and since the book is now out of print and very difficult to find (only one copy at $35.00 on Amazon) I thought it would be of value to readers to share some of his thoughts, since I'm fortunate enough to own the book. Even though he passed away in 2001 at age 81 the book is still under copyright and I don't want to steal someone's intellectual property, but I believe it's fair use to describe the contents and quote a few passages.
The sharp-eyed may notice that over on the sidebar there's an (excellent) blog named Secrets of Grandpatzer Chess, but curiously, when I commented on one of the posts there asking if that was from the book, Grandpatzer replied "wahrheit: no, I had to google in order to find the book you were referring to. I was playing off the title of one of Nunn's recent books, although Soltis' "Grandmaster Secrets: Endings" was also floating around in my head." I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
Enough of the prelims--to the book! The subtitle is "How to beat most people and computers at chess," and the author's stated aim is to raise the "duffer, fish, woodpusher or rabbit Class E, D, C or weak B" to the exalted status of "grandpatzer" (1700-2200). The "beating computers" part needs some historical context; at the time there was, of course, no Fritz or Rybka and Dr. Colby is talking about the Chess Challenger and others (here is a nice page with examples) which played in the 1200-1600 range on their higher settings. Interestingly, he believed one way to get better at chess was to emulate the computer ("the greatest grandpatzer of them all").
Here is a quote from the first page that should touch any discerning reader:
Why should a patzer seek to become a grandpatzer? Because of the aristos (Greek: Aristos = best). Life is more than ham sandwiches and beer. Humans strive, not just to survive, but to enhance the quality, the excellence, of survival. Striving for excellence in any endeavor, developing yourself to become your best at what you do, is rewarding and fulfilling to aspirations higher than happiness. Merely happy people, without artistic goals, vegetate in incomplete, hobbled and impoverished lives...A grandpatzer is a strong chessplayer, a threat to anyone (including himself) in a given game.
And one more indicative quote from the Introduction:
As Dr. G will show you, becoming a grandpatzer involves understanding the ego-game in addition to knowing lots of patterns, themes and tricks.
There are a great many other valuable and enjoyable quotes and tips in this book, and I'll share some of them with you in future posts.
The sharp-eyed may notice that over on the sidebar there's an (excellent) blog named Secrets of Grandpatzer Chess, but curiously, when I commented on one of the posts there asking if that was from the book, Grandpatzer replied "wahrheit: no, I had to google in order to find the book you were referring to. I was playing off the title of one of Nunn's recent books, although Soltis' "Grandmaster Secrets: Endings" was also floating around in my head." I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
Enough of the prelims--to the book! The subtitle is "How to beat most people and computers at chess," and the author's stated aim is to raise the "duffer, fish, woodpusher or rabbit Class E, D, C or weak B" to the exalted status of "grandpatzer" (1700-2200). The "beating computers" part needs some historical context; at the time there was, of course, no Fritz or Rybka and Dr. Colby is talking about the Chess Challenger and others (here is a nice page with examples) which played in the 1200-1600 range on their higher settings. Interestingly, he believed one way to get better at chess was to emulate the computer ("the greatest grandpatzer of them all").
Here is a quote from the first page that should touch any discerning reader:
Why should a patzer seek to become a grandpatzer? Because of the aristos (Greek: Aristos = best). Life is more than ham sandwiches and beer. Humans strive, not just to survive, but to enhance the quality, the excellence, of survival. Striving for excellence in any endeavor, developing yourself to become your best at what you do, is rewarding and fulfilling to aspirations higher than happiness. Merely happy people, without artistic goals, vegetate in incomplete, hobbled and impoverished lives...A grandpatzer is a strong chessplayer, a threat to anyone (including himself) in a given game.
And one more indicative quote from the Introduction:
As Dr. G will show you, becoming a grandpatzer involves understanding the ego-game in addition to knowing lots of patterns, themes and tricks.
There are a great many other valuable and enjoyable quotes and tips in this book, and I'll share some of them with you in future posts.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Reno Rapidplay 10.24.07 1.5/4
At the Reno Chess Club Quickplay Championship (G/29) last Thursday I scored +1 -2 =1 but in general had a blast playing at a fast time control--a couple of very interesting positions came up that I'll share with you after I get my last round game from the Western States Open posted. I see that my Quick Rating dropped from 1531 to 1504, which for some reason doesn't bother me too much. My regular "tournament" rating is what I'm focused on at this point.
Ernie Hong (Soapstone) has a game of his posted from the event, with his usual excellent annotations. I note that in the round prior I had Ernie (2009) in big trouble; I was a piece ahead and he played Bxh2+, when taking it would have led to an even bigger advantage for me, but I saw a "phantom" combination for him, played Kh1 and as it turned out that turned into a killing attack for him. Well, that's life in G/29, or The Fast Lane.
(NOTE: I see that the link to my rating just goes to the "find player page." Just type in 12374580 if you're interested in my checkered ratings history.)
Ernie Hong (Soapstone) has a game of his posted from the event, with his usual excellent annotations. I note that in the round prior I had Ernie (2009) in big trouble; I was a piece ahead and he played Bxh2+, when taking it would have led to an even bigger advantage for me, but I saw a "phantom" combination for him, played Kh1 and as it turned out that turned into a killing attack for him. Well, that's life in G/29, or The Fast Lane.
(NOTE: I see that the link to my rating just goes to the "find player page." Just type in 12374580 if you're interested in my checkered ratings history.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)