The Q & A Way
by Bruce Pandolfini

Relatively Speaking

Question I am a 38-year-old woman who just recently started
studying chess in a more serious manner. I've enjoyed playing all
sorts of games, but have been fascinated with chess for a long
time. My brother-in-law has played a lot of chess with friends and
considers studying chess a waste of time. He thinks the most
important thing is to play as much as possible to improve your
game. I feel that my game and perspective have improved with
books and videos, yet I still haven't been able to beat my brother-
in-law in chess.  Do you consider that just playing a lot a better
technique than studying? (Carmen Manning, USA)

Answer I'm not sure where to start, so let's begin with your
brother-in-law. The fact that he continues to beat you, even though
you study and he doesn't, doesn't mean that studying chess has no
value. He may be an excellent player (it's possible), and whether
you pursue the game his way, merely by playing, or your way, by
combining study and play, he may still continue to beat you in
head-to-head competition. So you shouldn't base your chess plans
merely on the results of these contests.

It's also unclear what he means by saying that studying chess is a
waste of time. Does he mean that studying chess for you is a waste
of time, because he understands your nature and knows what's best
for you? Or does he mean that it's a waste of time to study chess in
general, for anyone under any conditions? The latter assertion
naturally is preposterous, so I'm going to assume he means
something like the former. That is, he believes you and those
similar to you stand to gain more from playing and less from
studying. While this is debatable, it's entirely reasonable, and may
even be true in your individual case, though I'd have to know more
about you to say for sure. 

Let's assume that your brother-in-law is indeed a fine player. He's
certainly not the first to contend that chess shouldn't be studied. I
know of one grandmaster who believes chess can't be taught. And
there are other strong players who share this opinion, or a version
of it, though they are in the minority. Most chess authorities think
otherwise - that chess is teachable, and that to become really adept
at the game you should immerse yourself in both play and study.
 
But what are we talking about here? By your own words it's clear
you've gained a lot from your efforts. It's also evident that you
take considerable pleasure in studying the game, whether by
reading books or watching videos. Shouldn't these positive
feelings and experiences take precedence over everything else?
You enjoy doing what you're doing, so why do you care what your
brother-in-law thinks? Nevertheless, if you're really concerned,
and still have doubts, do some reconnaissance. Send me a few of
his recorded games and I'll tell you what I think about what he
thinks.

Question My fianc‚ and I love to play games, including
backgammon, Monopoly, cards, Go, Scrabble, and other word
games. It is very competitive, and I am almost as good as he is,
especially at chess, though he does not think I am that good,
claiming that I am too defensive. He also thinks that chess is the
least intelligent game we play, and he does not like chess players,
referring to some of them as "barbarians" who can only play chess.
Recently I bought a book on how to play chess better and my
fianc‚ criticized me. He is not really a reader, and I certainly
cannot get him to read anything that I read, and sometimes it hurts
my feelings. He says that truly talented people do not have to read
a book to master a game anyway. They do it with natural ability,
and it is only those without intelligence who turn to books. Do you
think he is right?
(Sandra Meyerson, USA)

Answer  Not only do I think he's wrong, I suspect he can't read,
even though he supposedly plays Scrabble. But this is something
you'll find out soon enough. Right now go on reading and trying to
improve. It can't hurt to arm before the barbarians get to the gate.


Question My brother and I have been playing chess for quite some
time.  We always seem to fall upon a disagreement about if a pawn
can 'pass up' taking another pawn when it is diagonal to it.  In other
words, if you have the opportunity to take another pawn, but
instead go straight one square without taking it... is this legal?
Even if both pawns have already made their initial move?
(Francisco Shillander, USA)

Answer What you seem to be asking is: Are certain captures in
chess compulsory? There are only two situations in which the rules
of the game necessitate a capture to be made. You must take a
particular unit if it is the only legal move possible; and you must
capture in compliance with the touch move rule (if you've touched
the enemy unit and can legally take it, or if you've touched one of
your own units and its only legal move is to capture a specific
enemy unit). No other circumstances in chess compel capture, so
you and your brother can go right on passing each other like pawns
in the night.

Question This is Lev D. Zilbermints, inventor of the Zilbermints
Gambit, writing. If you were White, what would you play after 1.
d4 e5  2. de5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nge7(!)? Please give some specific
analysis to support your viewpoint. Thanks. Keep in touch. (Lev
D. Zilbermints, USA)

Answer Sometimes you have to be there. I've never been there,
nor is it likely I'll ever experience the pleasure of being in this
position against you. Now that I know what you play I plan to steer
clear of 1.d4 in all our possible encounters.

Question Recently, we started a chess club. A number of our
members haven't played since college. A few are secret internet
chess junkies. None of them are chess sharks. For people just
getting back to the game, what are a few basic openings to play as
White or Black? (Alec Diacou, USA)

Answer Most players in your situation usually start with king-
pawn openings. They are easier to understand on the surface, and
there's more literature on them. But I wouldn't worry so much
about investing effort in studying specific systems and variations
at first. 

Nevertheless, to provide a prime mover, why don't you begin by
advancing your king-pawn two squares and see where it takes you.
Note how your opponents respond to this beginning and whether
you feel comfortable in the ensuing situations. As you experience
problems you can go back to the books for particular information.
And don't be afraid to change, make adjustments, or experiment. 

You could follow a similar policy with the Black pieces. Here, too,
you could reply to most of White's usual first moves by moving
your king-pawn two squares. (I would think twice, however, about
answering 1.Ng1-f3 with 1 e7-e5.) But it should work against
practically everything else, including 1.d4. For example, consider
the opening 1.d2-d4 e7-e5  2.d4xe5 Nb8-c6  3.Ng1-f3 Ng8-e7.
This seems interesting. I'd be curious to know where it goes from
there and how you do with it.

Question I am curious as to how one becomes and works as a
chess teacher in the U.S.  Are there reliable organizations that
provide chess teachers with work schedules, students, salary, etc.?
Or do teachers have to create their own connections with schools
and individuals to arrange lessons?  And also, what prospects do
you see for chess teaching as a profession in the next few decades
in U.S.? (Sergei Kanevsky, USA)

Answer There really is no official way to become a chess teacher.
There are organizations, such as the U.S. Chess Federation and
Chess-in-the-Schools, and they help considerably. But if a chess
teacher is to make a real living he or she must rely on personal
initiative. Does chess teaching have a future in America? I believe
so, and there is much promise, but we have a long way to go. (I
hope to address this question more fully in a future column.)

Question I am rated about 1700. I study chess with a prominent
chess teacher in California. Though I admire him immensely, I
find him to be a bit of a workaholic. He works from early morning
to late at night, whether it's teaching, studying, or playing. I can
almost never get him on the phone. He never refuses a chess lesson
or a class or an appearance, if he can be reached, and I can't get
him to take a day off. It's almost as if he is afraid to say no for fear
of going out of business. People tell me you are also somewhat
like this. Is this true? Is chess teaching that insecure? Do you ever
take a vacation or relax for a day? (Ronnie Goldschlager, USA)

Answer Maybe chess teaching does leave us feeling insecure.
Most of us have trouble making a living at this activity, and it's not
always based on factors under our control. Some of America's
very best chess teachers have had to abandon the profession in
order to eat and pay the rent. So I empathize with your chess
teacher. But I don't consider myself a workaholic. I try to take
days off here and there, and I love sitting in parks, walking through
museums, and reading big books. Yet it's hard to escape the chess
scene completely. 

I can remember a vacation day I took a long time ago when I
managed the Manhattan Chess Club. I needed to get away, so I
decided to head out to East Hampton for an afternoon of sun and
no chessplayers. I think it took about three hours to reach Main
Beach, far away from chess civilization. I sat on a beach chair and
began to relax with a copy of Moby Dick, a book I had always
wanted to read. About ten minutes after "Call me Ishmael" I
suddenly heard my named blurted out most familiarly. 

"Hey, Pandolfini, is that you? Hot dog, it is. Take a look at this." 

And there he was, the biggest pest the Manhattan Chess Club ever
had, walking over, wanting to show me on a pocket set a recent
game he had played in the Manhattan Friday Night Rapids. I never
did find out why he was there, nor did I progress much with
Melville's masterpiece. I concluded two things that afternoon:
taking a vacation day wasn't all it was cracked up to be, and the
game shown to me on the pocket set was absolutely terrible.
Anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised if your teacher has had
comparable experiences with similar books and chess fanatics.
Take that into account the next time you make out his check.

Question I am 19 « now and I took up chess seriously when I was
17. I seem to have improved reasonably fast as I am 1800 ELO
strength. I even drew with a 2427 rated IM (only in a speed chess
tournament). I was wondering how best I should continue to
improve. I have recently started studying endgames more (Rueben
Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings is good). I hope this will
help my improvement. I was wondering if you knew of any
precedent of someone taking up chess later than most and
becoming a GM? This is something I would dearly love to do.
(Stuart Hamilton, England)

Answer Obviously you're a talented player, and I have no doubt
that you should become much stronger if your love for the game
endures. But advising you is not so easy. Your endgame project
seems wise. You might want to proceed by building a solid library.
Let's just talk about endgame books. Perhaps you should start with
Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings, which is a great source of
material. You could supplement your efforts with Rook Endings by
Smyslov and Levenfish. I'm sure you would also benefit from any
endgame texts written or edited by either Jonathan Nunn, Jon
Speelman, or Yuri Averbakh. You'll probably also want to add to
your shelf Pal Benko's two collections of endgame articles
originally published in Chess Life. Finally, it wouldn't hurt to get a
copy of Jeno Ban's illuminating text The Tactics of End-Games.
It's a joy to play through. 

As far as the opening goes, Fine's book is fine as a starting point,
but it's a little dated for a contemporary player. A better approach
might be trying to keep abreast of current ideas by subscribing to a
major chess journal, say New In Chess. There you can see games
played by today's top competitors and novelties analyzed by
eminent theoreticians. Beyond books and particular studies I'm
going to throw out one other piece of advice, which is to play
strong players as often as you can (beating a 2427 player, even at
rapids, is a nice rung on anyone's ladder). You can't be the best
unless you beat the best. 

With regard to your concern about not becoming serious until your
late teens, I know of several other chessplayers who have
succeeded following a similar path. It can be done, and you sound
like the kind of young person who can do it. Good luck on your
quest.

Question In your book Chess Complete you say that you prefer to
encourage your students to learn how to think rather than structure
their chess lessons. While I have some idea of what you mean,
could you please elaborate? (Craig Knight, England)

Answer I became concerned with thinking in chess at the start of
my teaching career when I noticed that many of my students
played perfunctorily, without much consideration of their
opponent's moves or their own. I concluded that a student might
play this way because he or she was lost in a specific train of
thought or because it was easy to rely on certain lines previously
memorized. Students seemed to strive for these rote setups without
real comprehension and even after their opponents veered far from
the track. Sometimes they got away with it because their
opponents operated in similar universes, but not always. To
prosper as a teacher it was clear that I'd have to serve as more than
a mere database. I'd have to show students how to think when I
wasn't sure myself.
 
Since I was uncertain how to proceed it seemed prudent to ask lots
of questions, especially using them as probes to get inside the
heads of my students as they were working out their thoughts. I
began to question every move and suggestion, even the good ones.
I decided that this procedure could furnish instructional insights
while necessarily slowing down students so that they'd have more
time to ponder. It would also invite them to look ahead to
anticipate problems before they materialized. I reasoned that if my
questions were consistent, and I asked typical ones repeatedly,
students would gradually assimilate the types of questions and the
overriding process. They might start to ask themselves comparable
questions in their own games. At some point all this questioning
would result in better move selection and superior chess. Beyond
this I believed it would impart what I considered to be a powerful
truth, that by asking a good question one practically had the
answer, which in chess would lead to the right move. 

Accordingly I resisted giving structured lessons. I wanted to be
free to muse at the board, in front of the student, to illustrate how I
analyzed unfamiliar positions. By encouraging students to join me
as analytic equals, I hoped they could see my flaws firsthand, and
possibly find some ideas I didn't. This, I thought, would build their
confidence, and our lessons would equilibrate in friendly
conversations, where I sometimes learned as much as I taught.
 
That's about it. I could fill a book on all the other methods and
special exercises I've essayed to help students think while playing
chess, but none have proved more valuable than the art of asking
interactive questions. And there's nothing profound, remarkable,
or new about it. You can find it in the dialectics of Talmudic
scholars, and you can see it in the Socratic dialogues. But it's also
a technique that teachers ordinarily employ in the performance of
their everyday duties. By constantly questioning a student's
thoughts, by always seeking explanations, a teacher lays
groundwork for the student's eventual adoption of the analytic
method. This is primarily what I mean by saying I try to teach
thinking. I question them so that they learn to question everyone
and everything. For both student and teacher the process succeeds
when it culminates in a great realization, that the teacher is no
longer needed.