The Q & A Way Larry or Larry D? By Bruce Pandolfini Question I think I am a fan of yours, though I do not always understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. I like it that you are willing to take a stand, but it is not always obvious to me whether you are attacking people or praising them. Your advice is sometimes very amusing, like Woody Allen, but some of it can be viewed as totally off the wall, like when you sound as if you've become a schizoid version of Wilhelm Steinitz, and Friedrich Nietzsche combined. You can sound extremely helpful and concerned, and sometimes you say things that seem very useful that I have never heard articulated before. But sometimes you can also come off as being cruel, like the cold Ben Kingsley character in "Searching for Bobby Fischer." In fact, a friend of mine was unintentionally hurt by one of your responses. But people also tell me that you have a heart of gold, like a kind of Mother Theresa. Who is the real Bruce Pandolfini? Are you all of them? As a reader, I never know what to expect or quite how to interpret what you say, which I suppose is one of the reasons I find your column so appealing. I think I like it whether it's on the money, insightful, crazy, filled with venom, or even when it seems longwinded and off somewhere in deep space. Here is my question, not that I expect it to be published: On several occasions you have apparently said nice things about Larry Evans. Since there are two of them, Larry M. Evans and Larry D. Evans, which Larry Evans did you mean to praise (assuming that is what you were doing)? (David Kupfer, USA) Answer Both. Question I play chess for fun on the Internet and recently at home, against Chess Master 7000. My rating is 1750 with 25 games won, 10 lost and one draw. Is that a real rating? I have never studied chess before, but there is a series of lessons that came with Chess Master 7000 that have captured my full attention from the beginning. I read all of them but now I want more. Do you have any other CDs? I am thirsty for openings. I got 2 regular books from the library, but it seems so boring to read, especially compared to its multimedia approach. (Ridelto Gutierrez, Germany) Answer There does seem to be a variance between over-the- board ratings and Internet ratings, as well as those achieved by tests and other means. While the differences are not uniform, Internet ratings typically appear to be inflated by hundreds of points. I personally know of several players with USCF ratings around 1000 who have topped 1800 on the Internet. Moreover, I believe there are at least two grandmasters who have achieved ICC ratings greater than 3700. It's not clear why there is such a disparity. Obviously some people feel more comfortable with an interface. Some gain strength from sitting in the confines of their own environments. Others do better because they are able to exploit people, books, databases, and chess programs while actually playing. Still others have kept their ratings puffed by timely disconnection. Then there's distraction, and the timely insertion of diverting comments. Some exponents have developed this to a fine art. And who knows what other factors, sporting or unfair, play a role, but clearly ratings attained under different conditions don't necessarily correspond. With regard to learning online or with the aid of computer programs and CDs, I have to admit that we're at a revolutionary period in human history. Those conversant with the new technology will undoubtedly be armed to gain in unexpected ways. If you wish, for example, to study openings by means of database software, I recommend that you invest in ChessBase. It's an amazing tool, and every serious student of the game should have it. In addition you'll find a number of other beneficial items in the software section of The Chess Cafe. Reading the product descriptions should give you an idea what's out there. You can also access the numerous Internet sites now being developed. Some of these might prove engaging as well as educationally profitable. Just type in chess and see where it takes you. Question I am a chess fan from my younger years. I have a chess block for ten years now! I only seem to have the energy and nerves to play on ICC, but I have the feeling I still can prove myself (I am 31 now). My ELO was about 2220 when I was 19-years-old. Now I need to get a plan to get back in the chess- scene. Maybe a good repertoire, etc. Could you give me some tips please? My rating on ICC is about 2500, so what can I expect returning to the chess scene? (Alejandro de Diego, Holland) Answer I question the value of offering tips to a 2500 player in a column like this. It might make more sense if you were to give me a few tips. I've also had a chess block, not for ten years but for twenty-five. Perhaps you could tell me how I could achieve a 2500 rating by not competing. It would be great if I could count on "x" number of points for every year I didn't play. Turning to your repertoire, how bad could it be if it's empowered you to 2500? Even if that number is subject to the vagaries of the Internet, it's evident that you must be a gifted player. Still, if you remain determined to head off in new directions, I suggest you sit down with a grandmaster and have him or her revamp your opening repertory. For a player of your strength, this would be a reasonable first step. What can you expect upon returning to the chess scene? To be besieged by curious people asking how you were able to get so far on such little effort. You'd have our undivided attention. Question Yes . . . yes. I know it is a stupid question. But it seems to me no one is able to answer it. How can I improve? Should I study opening theory? Should I solve problems? Is there a book that can teach us 1800 players the way? (Carlos Guaimare, Venezula) Answer If you're looking to be shown the way, I suggest you turn to Lao Tzu. The Tao Te Ching has far more valuable answers for 1800 players than you'll find in any chess book. In fact, it's because no chess book has all the answers that some of us wind up buying thousands of them. Many of these monographs actually do have something to offer, even when terribly written, as long as they contain just a single position we'd like to see a second time. It's nice to know that such a position is in a book, sitting on our shelves, collecting dust with other similarly sitting positions and tomes. You want to improve? My advice is that you forget the printed word for now. Just play as often as you can, against the best competition you can find. You'll learn far more this way than from reading any one chess book. Question Well, firstly I want to say keep it up with your good work of teaching chess. I am 16 and a Zimbabwean chess player. I participate in many tournaments, but the problem I have is that I do not have theory. How should I get theory? Must I do this from a book? Answer I'm not sure what you mean by "theory." It could mean a number of things. You could talk about the theory of positional chess, which is a method and set of principles on how chess should be played. You could talk about endgame theory, which consists of all the known winning and drawn positions, as well as their underlying concepts, with supportive analysis. You could also talk about endgame theories within endgame theory, such as the theory of corresponding squares. But most of the time, when people talk about theory, they're referring to opening theory. There are many books that treat opening theory, such as MCO, where reasonable moves and lines are presented, together with the judgments of the analysts. Such encyclopedias are fine, and I'm sure they'd be somewhat serviceable for your purposes. If you really wanted the latest theoretical ideas, however, it wouldn't be so practical to rely on books, which in today's world are dated before they come out. It would make more sense to pick up magazines and tournament bulletins containing the latest games and theoretical articles. But even better than such journals would be the Internet. Nothing is faster, and the critical response to recently played games is immediate and worldwide. So if you really want to study theory, start by clicking the various online sites, where you can often follow the best players in the world as their games are actually being played. Question I am a chess teacher that mostly teaches small children, 12-year olds etc., although I also teach some older children. I was wondering what openings would you advise small children to play. I know that they are supposed to play open attacking games but do you think that gambits is the way to go? I am afraid that I might overdo it by teaching them gambits since their attacking technique is not all that good and it might affect their results. Because I know that the choice of opening can have a major effect on your performance I constantly worry that I am teaching them the wrong openings. Can you maybe outline a basic opening repertoire? (Janus Theron, South Africa) Answer I don't think it's so important which openings you illustrate, as long as you choose examples that are lucid, certain, and short. This doesn't mean that you have to offer games and lines from the 19th century, or that you have to show artificial traps that never occur. You can find, for instance, plausible variations in the English Opening and King's Indian Defense that are crystal clear, definite, and not too long. And what's wrong with showing them gambits? By playing gambits, at least those backed by published analysis, one naturally becomes more creative and resourceful. Besides, young gambiteers have a tendency to blitz through their opposition not only because aggression instills fear, but also because defensive skills generally take longer to acquire than attacking prowess. But why limit the scope of your presentation? Show them a little bit of everything so that they can sense the richness of the game. Let them know what exists and they can find their own candy. Question Hi my name is Josh, and I just got done with a game of chess with my uncle. He had all my pieces but my king and I was strapped. I wasn't in check but I couldn't move anywhere. See? I wasn't in check but anywhere I moved I would've been in check. Could I have passed my turn, or not have moved, and just let him move till he would have messed up or till he got me into checkmate? I need this answer!!! Thanks for your thoughts. (Joshua N. Spence, USA) Answer I'm not sure you really need this answer, Josh, and what makes you think your uncle would have messed up? Because he allowed you to draw the game by stalemate? Many of us leave our opponents without legal recourse while not putting them in check. By the way, you couldn't have passed your turn. This would have been against the rules. But you could pass future time by playing another game with your uncle. It would provide him an opportunity to share more of his avuncular wisdom while giving you a chance to explain your new understanding of the rule. Seems like a great deal to me. Question I have a six-year-old niece who seems interested in chess. She took an interest after playing a game against me. I've been playing for a little less then a year and during that time I've learned a lot from books and experienced players. I'm rated somewhere around 1300. I'd like to know any tips you have for teaching a six-year-old the game. With a little coaxing she picks up obvious threats, such as when there is piece contact. She knows how most of the pieces move, but has trouble remembering how knights move. I'd like to teach her more of the basics, but don't want to bore her. At the same time, making frequent recommendations and just letting her win games doesn't seem healthy either. Any advice? (Jeff Johnson, USA) Answer The key is to make sure the activity stays fun, and there's an infinitude of ways to do this. Since it's your niece, you probably already know enough to tap into what really fascinates her. Just keep it light, offering advice in the spirit of play, while skillfully adapting to the changing moods of childhood. This is the approach most teachers adopt, and even if it doesn't lead to chess mastery, at least they have good reason to believe they're contributing to the development of a healthy child, which always takes precedence. You can let her win all the time if this modus operandi doesn't cloy, but such an approach is certainly not required. There's nothing wrong with beating a student, as long as you know how to do so without causing pain or extinguishing passion for chess. For instance, playing more or less for real, you could offer her a biscuit one move before giving checkmate. Tell her she can save herself, saying that by finding your intended checkmate she gets the win. If she doesn't find it, you win. (It's better to put it in the positive, saying "you win" rather than "she loses.") This allows her to stay in the game to the very end, with all its didactic benefit. Another thing you could do is to allow her to change sides. That is, at opportune moments during a game, you could ask her which side she'd rather have. If she prefers your side, turn the board around and let her play your position as her own. Later on, if you regain the advantage, you can make the same offer, turning the board around once again and letting her play from there. You could do this as many times as you find useful, or you could limit the number of changes per game. Initially she might say "no," clinging to her own position, as children naturally do. But pose this adeptly and consistently and in time you'll get her to play along. It's okay to experiment until you find what seems to garner and hold her attention. Of course, all this has to do with the art of instruction, and how well a teacher brings this off. The worst techniques can flourish when employed by an experienced teacher, and the most proven ones can fail when not appreciated or handled properly. A good teacher can succeed even starting at the wrong place. So it's really not so much what you do but how you do it. Most of us know this. We just forget it now and then. Question I am the father of a fairly talented, 8-year-old chess player who just won the K-3 championship in his State (Florida). He gets lessons from a National Master at our home every other Tuesday for 90 minutes per session, attends a chess club at school for 90 minutes once per week during the school year, attends a one week chess camp each summer, and plays quads at a mostly adult chess club for about 3 hours one evening per week. I also play him about 3 or 4 games per week, but quite frankly, while I can provide him decent competition, he usually beats me. He also studies annotated games for about 30 minutes per night, two or three nights per week, and spends about an hour or two per week teaching his 6 yr. old sister how to play. He prefers to study games from the top players in his age group (i.e. published board 1 and 2 games from later rounds of national or state championship tournaments) over historical games of Masters. He also listens to/watches narrated games on a popular computer chess program from time to time. In the midst of all of this, he remains an excellent student and athlete (mostly baseball). Two questions: Is it wise for him to be studying games of top kids, rather than games of Masters? Is he getting enough or too much instruction? Note that we have allowed him to set his own chess schedule and he gives himself time off when he thinks he needs it. He had the opportunity to have the Chess Master every week, but decided that he wanted to have more "play time." I think he is making good decisions, and the results are showing it. He is still in love with the game. What do you think? (Donald A. Mihokovich, USA) Answer Your son patently is a promising young player, whose love and excitement for the game should take him quite far. I would not want to tamper with a program that appears to have worked so smoothly and effectively. I do think, however, that much more might be gained from looking at instructive examples rather than the creations of his third-grade rivals. These scholastic productions are likely to be pockmarked with erroneous plans and gaping oversights. I'm amazed he's able to get his hands on enough legible score sheets to make his efforts worthwhile. Veteran observers know that the best of these games, even when complete scores are available, fall far short of paradigmatic excellence. I would guess that the reason your son studies such contests is because his emphasis has been on beating specific players. Many young people play with such an aim, to beat particular competitors, but most teachers are not comfortable with this approach. They feel it conveys the wrong message and ultimately has less value than studying examples selected for instructional or aesthetic reasons. But if he's happy doing what he's doing, let him go on being who he is. In the end, it's more important to be happy, for this is usually the true path to success anyway. Finally, you ask if your son is getting too much instruction. Actually, he may be getting too little. He receives one private lesson every two weeks, while other top third-graders take as many as two and three lessons a week. But again, we all have different needs and tastes, and the regimen he's created for himself seems to be working very well. Be satisfied that you have such a talented and motivated child. Everyone should be so lucky.