|
|
|
The Q & A WayBruce Pandolfini
Translate this page
|
The Nature of Existence Question I have a five-year old daughter who is beginning to pick up chess. We just came back from a tournament and I was wondering what next. I thought to check with you. What openings should she be taught? So far I have told her to develop minor pieces and castle quickly which she diligently followed in the tournament. Will it make sense to introduce her to lines such as 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 and 3.Qf3, trying to mate at f7? What kind of practice should be done on a daily basis: one move mates, anything else? We are in India and would appreciate any tips. Thanks, Raghav Gupta (India) Answer Play with your daughter as often as you can. On a steady basis have her solve simple tactical problems of all kinds (such as those you can find in the books of Gillam). Regularly examine short games that illustrate the principles of good play. Moreover, as much as you are able, help your daughter analyze in her head, without moving the pieces. To that end, try not to show her moves without first giving them in chess notation. You'll want her to become comfortable with the squares of the board so that the two of you can talk chess more fluently. Whatever you do, however, don't advocate playing for the so-called Scholar's mate, whether for White or Black, where the queen and king-bishop aim for an unsound mate at the enemy king-bishop two square. Better than illustrating how to implement such a mate, it is wiser to spend time showing how to stop it once the opponent goes for it. Many kids seem at a loss to do just that. You have to be careful, because once you show kids such faulty pseudo attractive ideas the scheme becomes irresistible and they have difficulty not playing for it. I can't help remember a National Scholastic Championship from many years ago. I had an introductory student who lost his first three games and was really down. Trying to cheer him up, one of the other parents showed him a Scholar's checkmate and that's what the kid tried for the next game. He won. I congratulated him on his victory but warned him against going for the same setup again. It was bad chess and would wind up impairing his development. Besides, he would probably lose. But he didn't listen to me, tried it three more times, and won all three games. Imagine the difficulty I had trying to break him of that habit after he had won four games in a row with such rogue queen-and-bishop mates. Question I have read that chess is easy to learn, but hard to master. Some even say that it takes a lifetime to really master it. It puzzles me why in the present generation we have some eight-, ten-, and fifteen-year old grandmasters who are very good at this game, and they have barely started their lives. How can you explain this? I need to hear your input. Many thanks, Loy B. Bonto (Guam) Answer It is not hard to explain at all. There are millions more playing the game these days than ever. There is a ton of wonderful literature that didn't exist before. The proliferation of school programs, state-of-the-art software, the increase in serious tournament opportunities, the improvement and availability of professional coaching, and the immediacy of Internet access to outstanding playing and study sites translates to talented kids being able to learn more younger, faster, and better. Top it off with greater and greater appreciation for the game and its concomitant beauties and the mysterious emergence of young grandmasters begins to clear up fairly quickly. Question I would like to ask you about creativity in chess. I recently posted to a forum my view that chess can be reduced to just three elements. The idea is that skill in these is sufficient to get a long way up the grading ladder. My 'three elements' are favorite openings, endgames, and tactics. Broadly speaking, if you don't win in the opening, you go straight into a favorable endgame. Tactics run through the entire game and so-called positional principles are just tactics waiting to happen. This idea was mocked quite severely by the reprobates who frequent that particular forum. I hadn't come across another post that ever invited what was frankly a torrent of insults and don't intend to post there again. My question is this: are there fresh angles on chess which might help one's game and how much creativity is still possible in chess? It seems to me that the reaction to my idea was far from rational precisely because it challenged the received wisdom, particularly that a lengthy middlegame is always necessary and has to be studied as a separate phase. My idea implies that middlegames don't really exist. Of course, I'd also like to ask what you think of my idea and if you'd like to buy shares in it? Thanks for your column and books! Regards, Russell Ward (United Kingdom) Answer There is a lot of room for creativity in chess, whether playing it, studying it, teaching it, or doing practically anything with it. I am used to getting many concepts free, so I am going to skip purchasing shares in your idea of reducing chess to three elements. Nor am I going to buy into your explanation that middlegames don't really exist, though from my own play, I must admit, it might be hard to find evidence of any middlegame play at all. I surely wouldn't say that your notions are ridiculous. In fact, they seem interesting. But even if I thought your reasoning was not right I wouldn't dismiss it so readily or thoughtlessly. Who the heck am I to do that? You must take into account that much of human response time is set aside to satisfy the compulsion of assailing what seems contrary to received wisdom. Take a look at some of the wonderful books of either Bertrand Russell (let's say, Religion and Science or Why I am Not a Christian) or Alfred North Whitehead (how about Adventures of Ideas or Science and the Modern World). Throughout those writings, and elsewhere, those two intellectual giants are constantly pointing out that almost all advances in civilization are made in the teeth of the stiffest opposition. That's just the way many of us are. It is hard to act and easy to react. Even critical thinkers are still attempting to undermine the indisputable aspects of the Freudian and Darwinian theories (maybe some detractors have unconscious motives and their emotional intelligences are yet to evolve). So I applaud your courage and willingness to put yourself out there, where you've risked and apparently encountered abuse from the small-minded, the brain-dead, and the robotic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. Question I am a 1600-rated player and have question on using computers to improve my play. A chess teacher told me that I should play the computer at a 2200-level and that my goal was to draw against the computer. He felt that if I played opponents that are near my level strength that my improvement would be incremental. However, if I play masters or a computer at master level, then I would improve faster and I would make larger leaps in my chess improvement. Do you think this is sound advice? Edward Harmen (USA) Answer I don't quite agree with your former, apparently inflexible chess teacher. You should be playing stronger players, but not players so much stronger than you that you have no idea why they're blowing you to smithereens. Furthermore, if you're going to get crushed, you'll get more out of it if you can ask a question a two for which you can expect a response in words. Not too many computers supply such replies. The right level of opposition to face tends to be about one class ahead. That gives you a real chance to win, which acts as an incentive. Plus, when you're beaten, you're being defeated by someone who generally has solved the hurdles with which you're now trying to surmount, so you learn something. Now I agree with one thing your erstwhile educationalist seems to have said, particularly that your advance with this approach may be somewhat incremental. But Rome wasn't built in a day, as the platitudinous often drone. And besides, you're a chess player, and so was your chess teacher. Both of you must be familiar with the Steinitzian concept of accumulating small, incremental advantages until they swell to an overwhelming gain. My advice is to endeavor to play opponents of about 1800-strength. You'll win more, learn more, and enjoy it a lot more too. Question Hi, Bruce. the following is a quote from Nicolai Grekov from the 1949 edition of Soviet Chess. On page sixteen Grekov makes this statement in reference to Tchigorin in specific and Russian chess in general: "Tchigorin left an indelible imprint on our chess. There have been, and there are, Russians who play in the Steinitzian manner. There have been non-Russians – such as Frank Marshall – who have played in the manner of Tchigorin. But, by and large, one may draw the following distinction. When faced with a given position, the Germanic player (Tarrasch, Maróczy, Schlechter) tends to ask himself this question: How is this position like every other position? The Russian tends to ask: how does this position differ from every other position? Such is our tradition, and Tchigorin constructed the channel in which it runs." My question is twofold: first do you agree that this distinction is a key part in explaining Russian dominance in the chess world? And second, this seems to be good practical advice for chess players; i.e., when short on time, energy, or creativity ask the question of "how is this position like every other position" and when you have plenty of time, energy, and creativity when sitting at the board ask the question of "how does this position differ from every other position?" Regards, Kirk Plankey (USA) Answer I don't quite agree. Of course chess was somewhat in the Russian blood. Chigorin did indeed make major contributions to chess theory. The people may even have had an unusual feel for the game and its culture. But the main reason Soviet chess was so good was not because of a special ethos. It was good because so much effort was put into its development. The differences Grekov describes are clearly contrived. Real people don't fit into these neat encapsulations. The Soviet players themselves were incredibly diverse, with each one having a distinctive style that seemed to resist such simplistic characterization. Tal and Bronstein were unique talents. I doubt that they resorted to such confining generalizations in their approaches. Good players tend to do everything. If they have to play like Steinitz to win or save a position, they will. If the situation seems to call for a "Chigorin-like approach," they'll tap into that. Although they might not put things into such wording, in essence good players will ask both types of questions you've raised and more – much more. They'll certainly want to know what's different, but they'll also want to know what's similar. In a way, you can't have one without referencing the other. Isn't that obvious? You have to be careful when viewing some of this bogus history and supposedly objective analysis of the Soviet writers. Even the great Botvinnik inserted plenty of malarkey into his pronouncements, and if he had to do so, you can bet no one else was immune either. You also ask about what questions to ask when short of time and when you have plenty of time. In general, on your own move, you have to be specific, not waste time, and analyze relevant possibilities and options. On your opponent's move you can be more wide-ranging, asking exploratory questions and raising generalities. But again, in essence, asking what's different about a position is really also asking what's similar about it. They're different questions, but they are of the same class, yin and yang with the other. Flesh and blood people are intellectually and emotionally richer than the old Soviet categorizations would have them. But, of course, if you want to subjugate the human mind, it is easier to do once you imprison it inside a robot. Question of the Month What was the chief reason for Soviet chess dominance? © 2012 Bruce Pandolfini. All Rights Reserved. The Q & A Way is based in large part on readers’ questions. Do you have a question about preparation, strategy or tactics? Submit your questions (with you full name and country of residence please) and perhaps Bruce will reply in his next ChessCafe.com column... Yes, I have a question for Bruce! A PDF file of this month's Q & A Way column, along with all previous columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives. Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses will be posted below daily. Readers' Responses Michael from the UK – I wanted to respond to Edward Harmen's question. I am in a similar position, but what I have decided to do is try out a number of various computer strengths until I can find one where I have chances, and then try to master that level in yournament time controls. Then move up a level. And so on... until I topple Hydra. You might want to try that? Kurt from the USA – Soviet chess dominance had nothing to do with superior intellect or natural chess tendencies. It was entirely a result of the limited favorable opportunities available to the brightest minds of Soviet youth. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state. Over 90% of its population was destined to endure a drab and dreary life, waiting in lines for desirable food selections, having limited clothing and appliance choices, seeing little opportunities to escape cramped living conditions, having almost no likelihood of ever owning any form of personal transportation, and living under an ever present police state. There were only a few ways to escape this. Worth mentioning are a) join the Communist Party and climb the ladder, b) acquire an advanced degree in engineering or science related to military superiority, c) demonstrate an athletic ability that could be developed and show-cased to the rest of the world, and d) chess. Maybe there were a dozen more. In contrast, in western societies there existed (and still exist) probably 10,000 or more paths that could lead to an above average income, prestige, perquisites, or stature. Every nation produces roughly the same percentage of ultra bright minds. In the Soviet Union these were channeled into less than about twenty career paths, resulting in millions of the brightest headed toward chess. In the West, the brightest youth are diluted into thousands of career paths and, if fortunate, chess captures a few hundred or a few thousand. In summary, it’s a matter of opportunities available to young bright minds. The Soviet Union didn’t offer many and Soviet chess benefited. Barone from Italy – From the players' point of view, the main reason was the opportunity to "make a living" out of a talent they showed as kids. This could be appealing to the most different characters such as the "artistic" type, which I identify with Spassky, or the "die-hard" type, I think we still can see in Korchnoi. From the sport/politics point of view, I've read somewhere an opinion which seems quite sensible, i.e. the pseudo-communist regime of USSR picked chess as a national sport and pastime because of its inexpensiveness and because it could be used to promote a cultural evolution of the huge mass of illeterates living in the incredibly vast soviet rural zones. But a factor which is seldomly referred to and which I'd like to see addressed is the composite nature of the former U.S.S.R. As an example, is Shirov the modern Magician from Riga, or does he belong to Botvinnik's "Russian Schoolboy" tradition? Andrew from the USA – The Soviet Union actively sought dominance in international competition (Olympic games as well as Chess). This was a way to claim superiority of their political ideology in developing human potential. Their state-sponsored Palace of Pioneers (for their children and youth) provided instruction and opportunity for competition in many activities, including athletics/sports and chess. This is where young talent was first identified, then nurtured. When a young person demonstrated talent, they were given further instruction and coaching. The government paid for this when families could not afford it. Travel expenses to competitive events (within or outside the Soviet Union) was also government subsidized. In the former Soviet Union, one could be in effect, a full-time professional chess player, with access to chess literature, teachers, coaches, trainers, or mentors. There was eventually established a "Soviet School of Chess". Chess games of top players as well as chess theory was published by the government. Young and developing players had ready access to published chess games and theory. (Young Bobby Fischer taught himself basic Russian language so he could access for himself the top chess theory in the world). Young people in other countries (including the USA) were all at a competitive disadvantage. Chess had to be pursued as an individual enterprise. Full-time chess was only possible for the youth of wealthy families. Otherwise, one had to pay for college tuition, and/or earn a living at a job. Chess then, could only be a part-time endeavor for most people. One could never expect to earn a living from prize money earned in tournament play, at least in the early post-war years. Unlike the Soviet Union, chess was not available to young people anywhere they might live. Chess clubs were rare in the USA, at least not avaialble nearly everywhere, as was the case in the Soviet Union. To summarize, Chess players from the rest of the world were at a competitive disadvantage to the state-sponsored full-time chess players of the former Soviet Union. P.S. I think your column is fabulous! I so appreciate your depth, and avoidance of superficiality in your thoughtful and reasoned responses to questions. Iain from England – I'd like to comment on Russell Ward's question. I wouldn't quite agree that there's no such thing as a middlegame, although I would agree that there is no standard middlegame in the way that there are standard openings or endings. Rather there are many different types of middlegames. But it's an interesting theory and you have every right to discuss it without being flamed. If you want a more mature discussion of creativity in chess, head on to chessgames.com and look me up. My username is Once. Jack from the USA – There are two. The first is State support. China now excels in gymnastics because that is where the State sponsorship is. The Chinese government scouts for young gymnastic talent, takes the child away to be trained, and pays the family for the child’s performance. In the Soviet Union, the State supported chess schools and chess players. There was also little choice in the matter. In the U.S., a person with the mental aptitude for chess could get a much more lucrative career elsewhere. Not so in the Soviet Union. The second reason is, it is cold in Russia! So what do they do on those long cold nights? Well, going back to Blazing Saddles, when Sheriff Bart is introducing himself to the Waco Kid: Bart: Well, Jim, since you are my guest and I am your host, what's your pleasure? What do you like to do? Jim: Oh, I don't know. Play chess... screw... Bart: [quickly] Well, let's play chess. If my understanding is correct, it is Iceland that has the highest number of GMs per capita. It’s cold in Iceland, too. |
Purchases from our
|
|
|
|
[ChessCafe
Home Page] [Book
Review] [Columnists] © 2012 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
|
