The Q & A Way
by Bruce Pandolfini

Compute This

Question To what extent do you use computer-based instruction in
your lessons? Also, what teaching techniques do you employ when
using computers? (Tim Sweeney, USA)

Answer I first started using computers to aid in instructing chess
around 1980, when I was a spokesperson for Mattel Electronics.
The company had come out with several handheld computer
games, one being chess. The early computer chess games were
primitive, but through the years, as products became more
advanced and accessible, I've utilized them increasingly to help in
teaching the game.

There are many ways to use computers to help tutor chess, and
some of the most creative uses are yet to be discovered. The chief
technique I've relied on is to play with the student in tandem
against the computer. There's an immediacy to it that can't be
gotten from looking at a game after it's been played, when some of
the thinking behind the moves has become muddled or lost. By
virtue of being there as the game is conceived the teacher can ask
particularly relevant questions to get inside the mind and derive
insights into how and what a student thinks. Being there also
avoids the problem of incorrect scores, where moves have been
recorded inaccurately or not all. Every teacher knows how
frustrating it can be to reconstruct a game from mysterious jottings
and blank spaces. 

But there's another factor that makes this form of instruction  
playing with the student against the computer   especially helpful.
It's that the discussion between teacher and student can be
revealing and direct without affecting the opponent's response.
Think how absurd it would be to discuss strategy and tactics with a
student in front of a live opponent. He or she would hear the
conversation and take steps to counteract it. But the computer is
dumb in this sense. It plays on as if in a vacuum, oblivious to such
consultations. So the teacher can state a plan openly and the
student can actually see it implemented, practically with no
interference. The result is powerful instruction, for the student sees
the value of the teacher's thinking immediately and successfully,
rather than having to comprehend it in the lingering doubt of
analytic afterthought. 

Post-game suggestions are seldom as effective as instant
explanations, and here this is true even when the teacher's on-site
suggestions are off the mark, for the computer allows moves to be
taken back. So if a plan doesn't work, the teacher/student pair can
see why, and this too becomes valuable learning, as in cases where
the student overrides the teacher's guidance and insists on
following through with his or her own reasoning.  Once it becomes
clear that the journey has gone awry, the game can be taken back
to the point of dispute and replayed from there, this time trying the
teacher's idea. The likely difference in outcome should speak for
itself. The student learns the hard way, and the hard way is usually
memorable. 

This technique, though, is not the only means by which computers
can be used to assist chess study. For example, with regard to
opening work, you could take the last known theoretical position
and play numerous games from there to generate new ideas and to
extend the length of your pet lines. Or you could use various
software products to search for related situations to see how they
were handled. Such a strategy aims to amass a stockpile of
corresponding positions so that selected patterns and concepts can
be assimilated by sheer force and in all their totality. While we
never want to stop thinking, there is something to be said for some
repetitive learning until certain useful reactions become automatic
and therefore "intuitive." This frees energy for creativity and
productive thinking, as well as for inspirational awareness of when
rules should be broken.

One of the most instructive things a student can use a computer for
is to compile his or her own games. Compiling them enables the
material to be referenced quickly, easily, and in distinctive ways
that highlight key ideas. The process also tends to reduce mistakes
and save time. A mere click will take you back to the branching
point without having to move pieces or check for incorrect
placements. Finally, if the program allows it, you can then print
out positions from your games for visual reinforcement. And these
are just a few of the things you can do with computers. Surely
much more will be learned as chess teachers continue to arm
themselves with the new technology.


Question I am an average intermediate player, rated perhaps about
US 1600, who until now has mostly played against one or two
keen chess friends but never joined a club. I have a limited amount
of time available for chess but enjoy reading chess books, love
playing the game, and would like to become a strong intermediate
player over time. I was pleased to recently discover the internet
chess servers, and am ready to start playing lots of practice games
online and later study them to see how I might improve.

My question is: What would you suggest as a good time-control to
use for an intermediate player for his or her regular practice
games? I find I need a reasonable amount of time to look at the
board, come up with a strategic plan, test it in my mind, and then
execute it by making a move. I find it easy to do this when there is
an hour per player available, but most opponents on the internet
are interested in playing shorter games. So I am thinking it is
probably more practical to make my regular practice games limited
to only twenty or thirty minutes per player, but given the
bewildering array of time-controls available, Fischer and ordinary,
it is hard for the average player like me to know exactly which to
choose! Does the developing player have to be wary of choosing
the wrong time-control? Thank you for your informative column
on The Chess Caf‚. 
(Robert Gollagher, Australia)

Answer It's hard to say what's right for an individual. I suggest
that you assay different time controls of twenty minutes or more,
say at five-minute intervals. You could also try increments, where
a certain number of seconds are added for every move made. After
a trial period you can decide for yourself which of these
circumstances work well for you, for it's usually best to experience
a set of conditions firsthand, rather than merely to follow
someone's impersonal advice. I would suggest, however, that you
stick to your guns and avoid the mindless rapidity of typical
Internet games. Maybe it's true that many players seek breakneck
controls, and after issuing some challenges you might have to wait.
But you shouldn't really have trouble finding opponents who
prefer more time. Eventually you'll make contacts and friendly
adversaries who tend to go online at specific slots. You might even
be able to schedule playing sessions with them as you get to know
their habits.

Do you have to be wary of choosing the wrong time control? Not if
you approach the matter experimentally and objectively. Be a
scientist. Maybe you won't be able to prove what works, but you'll
often be able to sense what doesn't work, and nothing teaches like
failed experience.


Question As a tournament player with a rating equivalent to
roughly 1700 FIDE, I have devised an improvement program
based upon working through history, as it were. That is, I was
thinking of beginning with the games of Morphy, progressing to
Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, etc. right
through to Karpov, Kasparov and the other modern greats such as
Anand, Kramnik, and Shirov.  In parallel with playing through the
games, I was also thinking of studying books in the areas of
strength of each player so that their games might illustrate the
principles. For example, tactics with Morphy, endgames with
Capablanca, attacking play with Alekhine, My System with
Nimzovich . . .

However, given that such a program of studying is obviously very
much a long term proposition, do you think spending so long
studying the "classics" would hinder rather than help my progress
as a player, given that I wouldn't be exposed to some of the more
recent ideas in modern games? If so, do you think it would be
better to study the players by grouping a modern player with a
classic one (giving exposure to both schools of thought) or in a
random order? Any advice you give is much appreciated.
(Nicholas Cooper, Australia)

Answer The historical method you've described for studying chess
has its own history, though you are to be congratulated for coming
up with it independently. Richard Reti's evolutionary approach
was first propounded in his Modern Ideas In Chess and Masters of
the Chessboard, the latter finished in 1933 by Hans Kmoch after
Reti's death in 1929. In these books Reti drew from then
prevailing theories in science, philosophy, and history to put forth
the notion that the development of the individual chessplayer
recapitulates the development of chess theory itself. Reti
advocated that in studying chess ideas it would be prudent to begin
at the beginning, with the first class of strong masters. These
players laid down the fundamentals of sound play, which everyone
should know. From these classicists Reti argued that students
should shift their attention to the next generation of leading
players, who logically built upon the ideas of their predecessors.
From there the student should move to the third generation of good
players and beyond, proceeding naturally through the history of
chess and its ever increasing levels of complexity. 

Another version of this was posed in Imre Koenig's From Morphy
to Botvinnik. Koenig applied his modification of Reti to the
openings, especially four different ones: the Ruy Lopez, the
Queen's Gambit, the King's Gambit, and the English Opening. For
example, Koenig started by presenting how Morphy conducted
some aspects of the Ruy Lopez. Then he showed how Anderssen
and Steinitz treated a different Lopez variation. Then he offered
Lasker's refinements in another Lopez line, and so on. (Actually,
Koenig had adhered to Reti's concept in an earlier treatise on the
Queen's Indian Defense, which preceded "From Morphy to
Botvinnik" by several years.) Two later twists on Koenig's
adaptation of Reti were offered by Max Euwe in his Development
of Chess Style and Andy Soltis in his two-volume set Opening
Ideas and Analysis for Advanced Players. Euwe's book correlates
nicely with your idea of identifying individual players by style and
personal characteristics (as does Anthony Saidy's entertaining The
Battle of Chess Ideas).The Soltis volumes show modern
applications of specific openings, with some explanation of the
underlying history. 
 
Some coaches, such as Jack Collins, Bobby Fischer's chess
teacher, have also made Reti's formula the backbone of their
presentation. Although I don't think he's written much about it,
Jack is famous for his evolutionary course on the world
champions. It requires his students to play over one hundred games
of every title-holder. That's 1300 stellar games in which
practically all the important ideas of chess are given a forum. 

Of course, as you've already implied, you shouldn't have to play
over so many games to start deriving benefit. Nor do you have to
emphasize the champs. Surely much can be learned from the
games of Tarrasch, Nimzovich, Rubinstein, Keres, Bronstein,
Korchnoy, Larsen, Anand, Kramnik, Shirov and others. Moreover,
in line with your thinking, you could split your efforts between
some classic players and some contemporary ones, trying perhaps
to establish stylistic links. Obviously, there's a lot of room for
creative enterprise here, using the past to understand the present
and to improve the future. Good luck on the implementation of
your exciting program.


Question I think your endgame book is one of the great five or six
books all chess players should have. I read that blitz can do a lot
for your game (Buckley Chess Analysis) and that it is fast food
leading nowhere (Yermo). What do you think? Did fast blitz play
help B. Fischer as Mark Buckley says? (Niall Murphy, Ireland)

Answer I doubt the following answer will settle this debate, and
the truth is that both positions could be defended adequately.
When you play blitz you get to see more games and positions.
After you've seen a lot of situations you can place particular
emphasis on the most appealing ideas and follow-up with further
study. Speed chess also tends to develop tactical awareness,
though not necessarily for the deep stuff, and this is perhaps the
chief thing against it. Too much blitz instills superficiality, where
the tendency is to play for shallow tactics and coffee house traps. 

But it doesn't have to be this way, especially if you are aware of
the potential problems and mindfully try to balance your program,
with an emphasis on more serious chess pursuits. Certainly you
shouldn't play an abundance of speed chess just prior to entering a
tournament with slower time controls. Yet speed chess can be fun,
and the attainment of pleasure is one reason we play at all. So if
you suddenly feel an urge to play some blitz, go right ahead, but
do it with an overview of who you are and where you want to be.
Did speed chess help Bobby Fischer? I don't know, but he played
remarkably well, fast or slow.


Question I have a chess rating of 1675 (USCF) and I have been
playing chess tournaments for the last five years. I find myself
getting nervous in intense middle game situations. Once a
queenless endgame is reached I feel considerably more relaxed.
This is where most of my success comes from winning endgames.
Would it be possible or is it possible to recommend a set of
openings that could bypass the middle game and lead one to a
playable endgame? Also, could you recommend some endgame
books to study? 
(John Jackson, USA)

Answer Playing good chess is partly about feeling comfortable. If
skipping the opening to reach an ending makes you feel at ease,
then this strategy is right for you, regardless of the method's
general merit. And indeed, it's often quite possible to play the
opening in such a way as to reach a favorable ending by skipping
the middlegame. 

The Exchange Lopez is such an attempt. From Emmanuel Lasker
to Bobby Fischer we've seen players cede the two bishops to
obtain a favorable pawn imbalance on the kingside. Whenever you
weigh such a policy, exchanging to reach an endgame, you should
factor in the resulting pawn structures and how particular pieces
will thrive or falter after the trades. If you have a choice, you
certainly don't want to trade down to an inferior endgame, with
lifeless pawns and scope-less pieces.

A number of authors have dealt with this theme of presenting
openings according to the types of endgames that are likely to
arise. Edmar Mednis, for one, has treated this material in his
excellent book From the Opening to the Endgame, and so has
Shereshevsky in his informed two-volume set Mastering the
Endgame. Shereshevsky's first volume presents typical endings,
arranged by opening, from open and semi-open games, and his
second volume deals with those endings that tend to come about
from closed games. 

If you want to find additional examples you might try using a
software tool such as Chessbase. Here you could search for games
stemming from particular opening variations that go a certain
number of moves (so that it's likely they have reached the
endgame phase) and also with a decisive outcome, where your side
scores. Later you can do a similar search to see how the other side
wins these endings, to learn what to avoid. Then you can round off
your efforts by looking at the draws, for these can be just as
important.

So if you feel more comfortable with the queens off the board, go
ahead and trade them. Yet make sure you realize that an ill-
considered exchange could lead to a losing position, whereas
keeping queens on the board, as displeasing as it may be to your
aesthetic, might at least offer some chances. But the choice is
yours.


Question I am a chess enthusiast and beginning player. I always
wanted to get this question cleared up. How do chess players think
when playing a game? Of course, I have read all about analyzing a
position and so on but still, is it a move-by-move game? Because
when you have a plan and go about it, your opponent's move
disrupts it and sometimes it fails. So it looks like you are
constantly planning after every move but not achieving it because
your opponent knows exactly what is going on in your mind. He
defends against it well. I am a beginner and with my peers I tend to
have equal games. I rather want to have games where I develop an
advantage and maintain it. Yes, that is what is wrong. It seems like
I have an advantage but I just don't seem to be able to maintain it
which results either in a loss or boring games. I guess I have a lot
to learn. Is there any advice you can give? (Siddarth Shankar,
India)

Answer How do good players think? They do several things,
including analyzing their opponent's last move for immediate pro-
and-con tactics. They try to strengthen their own positions and spot
possible weaknesses. They try to ward off danger ahead of time.
They look for future possibilities and make plans, and they stay
with their plans unless the situation requires a change or they see
an opportunity, whereupon they will veer from their plans. But in
reality they are not veering from their plans at all. This is because a
good plan takes into account the possibility of unexpected or
unforeseen possibilities. Good plans, like good planners, are
flexible. 

To learn more about planning you might turn to books containing
well-annotated games, with notes in both words and variations. A
balanced mixture is essential if all the ideas are to be understood.
In this regard the game collections of Alekhine and  Botvinnik
stand out, as does Bronstein's Zurich 1953 and Tal's Tal-Botvinnik
1960. I would also turn to the "grandmaster-thinks" series of
Kotov. But any thoroughly analyzed game collection should do.
Generally, the more thoroughly annotated the games, the better.


Question I am an unrated player with limited time for study, and
have been playing against PC programs and on the internet for
about three years. My question concerns the Sicilian. In my study,
I have been told that in general (always in general) it is unwise to
exchange a central pawn for a pawn closer to a wing. Why, then,
should White offer Black his d-pawn for Black's c-pawn? Where
is the exception to the above-quoted rule in this situation? Thanks
for any help you can offer. (David Graham, USA)

Answer When you see a general statement advising you to do
something, it doesn't mean the advice applies to all circumstances
whatsoever. There are likely to be exceptions and it may be
inelegant or impractical for the author to list them. Doing so might
impede instruction, while in some cases the number of exceptions
could be legion.
 
I can't speak for the author who proffered this wing/center
suggestion (which most experienced chessplayers would agree
with), but when a writer or teacher says "don't do this," he or she
almost always means "don't do this unless this is one of those
times you should do this." To be more specific, the framer of the
above wisdom was possibly trying to convey something like: Try
not to exchange a center pawn for a wing pawn unless you must do
so, or unless it's desirable to do so, or unless not doing so is
undesirable. Perhaps the writer left off these qualifying remarks
thinking that the concept would be understood and therefore didn't
want to fill up the page with unnecessary jargon.

Clearly we must be leery of placing too much faith in generalities.
If playing chess were merely a matter of memorizing a couple of
hundred maxims then all of us would play like Garry Kasparov.
But this is not the route to chess mastery, let alone the world
championship. You might then ask: Well, if general advice is
prone to so many limitations and exceptions, what good is it? This
is a fair question, and it deserves an answer. 

When it's your turn you are trying to find the best move. It usually
means doing at least two things: answering your opponent's threats
while fostering your own aims. This is easy enough when your
opponent's moves are direct and your responses are practically
forced or when you are following through on clear tactical motifs.
But what should you do when nothing is obvious? 

That's when you might turn to a general principle for guidance.
After you've made a preliminary analysis of the situation, making
sure you've dealt with your opponent's threats and looked for your
own tactical possibilities, and once you've gotten some grasp of
the position (materially, structurally, and so on), you might then
pose a leading question. You could, for instance, ask yourself: Is
there a principle that might help in this situation? If you think of
one, then you must see if it actually applies. And if it applies, you
still might reject it if the tactics aren't there. Whatever the outcome
of this type of investigation, starting with a principle does serve a
purpose. It empowers the internal monologue that provides the
mechanism for determining your next move. But no principle, no
matter how relevant, can replace concrete analysis.
 
To answer your opening question: Why would White exchange a
center pawn for a wing pawn in the Sicilian Defense? Because he
thinks what he gets (open center, better development, attacking
chances) outweighs what he gives up (the trade of d-pawn for c-
pawn, leaving Black with a central pawn majority). Which side
gets the better deal? As Socrates makes clear at the end of the
"Apology," the answer is known only to God.