The Q & A Way

It's Simple To  Symbol

By Bruce Pandolfini


Question When playing through a game or analysis, I am often
frustrated by a terse string of moves, often ending with notation
implying good move or advantage to White etc. Often I have no
idea why this is the case. What techniques can a club player
employ to better understand some of these assessments? John Olle
(Australia)

Answer I can understand your frustration with the clipped
commentary of chess symbolism. Not only does it seem cold and
impersonal, but it often leaves out the connective tissue that ties
ideas together. We usually need words for that, but because chess
is played so widely, chess writers have sought ways to make their
ideas universally intelligible to get beyond language barriers. So
they have resorted to symbols that can be understood regardless of
one's native tongue. You can learn more about these symbols, and
what they stand for, by looking in the front part of any Informant.
But if I interpret you rightly, symbology is not the real problem.
Rather it seems that you're unclear why analysts come to certain
conclusions in the first place, and you're looking for ways to help
you understand these assessments better.

Whenever unsure about a situation it can't hurt to ask a few
probing questions. For example, you might ask questions to elicit
information about the elements. While not automatically providing
the answers you want, such an investigation could point out
differences in material, pawn structure, space, time, king safety,
and other factors which may give you a better take on the position.
Or you could ask another set of internalized questions, this group
focusing on plans and future possibilities. Some of these might
suggest tactical ideas that suddenly explain the analyst's original
symbolic appraisals. And who knows what other questions the
position may trigger to lead you to a fuller understanding.
 
If after these queries you still have doubts, you could show the
position to others to see what they think. It's surprising how often
another player, even one not so strong, might know the situation or
have an insight. Then there are computers. With ChessBase, or a
comparable tool, you could search for related positions to see what
they can furnish. A review of these search-generated examples
might inform or clarify the analysis under contention. You could
also set up the position on a chess program and play it out a
number of times. This might illuminate the annotator's judgments
even further, especially if the computer takes both sides of the bet,
playing against you first from one side, then the other. If all this
fails, I suppose you could turn to a different kind of chess literature
completely, one relying more on words and less on exclamation
points.

Question I don't mind playing over annotated games, but
sometimes the annotations are so complicated that it becomes a
problem to constantly go back to where the position used to be. I
get tired and I lose interest. Do I have to read every note to get
something out of it? David Pavese (USA)

Answer Of course you can pass over certain comments, especially
complicated ones that diminish the pleasure of the activity, as long
as you keep some sense of what's happening. Most players just
want to see the game anyway, and too many side variations tend to
break their flow. So instead of laboring through every note,
especially lengthy concatenations of moves given with little or no
explanation, you might simply skip over such tedious stuff and
move on. This is certainly not the ideal approach. The serious
competitor wants to know it all. But it's pragmatic and therefore
has greater utility for the ordinary player, who doesn't have to
grasp everything a game has to offer to derive benefit. Besides, too
much work might dissuade the student from studying chess at all,
which would be far worse. 

For the amateur, chess capital usually can be made by assimilating
typical strategies and positions. This absorbing process gradually
makes one more intuitive and less reliant on nuts-and-bolts
analysis, not that there's anything wrong with being a calculator,
inasmuch as complete gamesters also need to be analytic. But if
we're talking casual players, the truth is they can make great
practical gains merely by learning which ideas are good, even to
the extent of not really knowing why. So if you want to disregard a
specific to cut to a general, or find that it's more fun to ignore a
why to get to a what, go right ahead. It's what many people do
anyway, even if they don't admit it. 

Question Many books stress visualization and sight of the board in
order to play well. Is this an innate skill or can it be developed? If
it is something that can be developed are there any drills or
exercises that you could recommend? Kevin Micklewright (USA)

Answer The facility seems mainly to be innate, though capable of
being sharpened and improved. Generally, you can develop these
mental muscles by exercising them regularly, always making the
effort to analyze in the mind, whether considering a position or
solving a problem. If you want your visualization to improve, as a
rule, resist moving the pieces no matter how hard the situation
appears or becomes. And if you give up on an example, continue
to use your head when you look at the solution. That is, be sure to
play the answer in your mind, not on the board. It pays to be
persistent about this, for that's how you can make real headway.
 
In addition to solving tactics in your head you could also develop
your visualization by playing over entire games, stopping to check
yourself every five moves or so. Simply start at the beginning of a
game and try to play the first five moves in your mind. As you
imagine the position after the fifth move, actually play the moves
on the board for confirmation. Then, in the same way, proceed
mentally onward to move ten. Now play these moves on the board
to corroborate them as well. From there, forge ahead to move
fifteen, following through with the same procedure right through to
the end of the game.

It might be easier doing this on a computer, where you can click
around with relative ease. Certain books also could serve nicely,
such as those in the old Weltgeschichte series. These tomes, though
superseded by today's database technology, presented hundreds of
games played by a particular chess great, with diagrams
interspersed every five moves. They were terrific sources of
material, and very helpful to several generations of top players. 

But there's no alchemy here. No matter how good you already are
at visualizing ahead, you're probably not going to make much
progress without putting in time and effort. You'll need to assume
and practice the good habit of never moving the pieces when
analyzing, no matter what, plain and simple.

Question I have been playing chess for years and recently turned
to reading chess books. I like all kinds of chess books, even some
of yours, though I think my favorite ones are game collections,
especially game collections of the great players. I've also noticed
something. It seems that in every game there are key moments
when you should start to think more. I must tell you that I have
trouble figuring out when these moments are about to appear. Is
there an exercise you could suggest to help me become better at
recognizing them? Anthony Fernandez (USA)

Answer I'm not sure there's anything I could say to address your
needs. I suppose you might become more receptive to these
consequential junctures by focusing on the diagrams of annotated
games. They clearly point out important moments during play. So
take any typical game collection, go to game one, and concentrate
on the first diagram. Try to guess the next move, and after a few
minutes of pondering, check the subsequent text to see how well
you did. Work through book after book this way, going from
diagram to diagram, and it might make you slightly more attuned
to these "key moments." Unless you have a grandmaster willing to
stand next to you and signal when these opportunities arise, I don't
know what else to recommend, other than working hard and
actually improving your own play. This is probably the better way
to go. It would be more satisfying and a heck of a lot cheaper. 

Question I have a gifted and talented 8-year-old son who wants to
takes chess lessons over the telephone. He is very curious and
knows an incredible number of things. He loves gadgetry,
computers, and all types of machines. He also loves nature and
animals. He is also a brilliant musician who studies piano and
voice, and he loves to sing Broadway show tunes. He is by far the
best reader in his class and he is a wonderful problem solver. You
should see him think and reason. "His problem" is that we live
very far from the city and can't meet with a chess teacher in
person. What do you think about phone lessons? Do you know any
chess teachers good enough who can do this? Do you think that
these types of lessons can be effective, especially given the age of
my son? 
Ruth Wilder (USA)

Answer I wouldn't worry about your son's age or his ability to
handle chess lessons over the phone. From your description of him
I'm surprised he hasn't asked about early application to Harvard.
Nor is it obvious that you've hit the nail on the head when you talk
about "his problem." But getting to the chess part of your question,
sessions over the phone could work if both teacher and student are
aware of the potential difficulties and prepare to meet them before
starting such lessons. 

I realized this as early as 1972 when I first began to develop
clientele around the country. It was immediately clear that for this
type of lesson to work the student had to be conversant with chess
notation. Otherwise time would be wasted and thinking would be
expended on the wrong things. The waste can be particularly silly,
such as when the student doesn't know the names of the squares
and has to depend on a grid. You'd be surprised how often phone
lessons are halted or frustrated because the board is setup
backward, with the higher numbers on White's side. Young
children are especially prone to this mistake. There also may be a
personal aversion to certain notational systems. Some adults,
particularly older ones, are used to descriptive notation, while most
chess teachers, especially foreign-born ones, are comfortable only
with algebraic (which actually is preferable). Moreover, the
foreign teachers naturally may have difficulty teaching in the
student's own language, not that native-born teachers are
necessarily any clearer. Some of them speak their own obscure
language, if they speak at all. 

And let's not forget the difficulty of playing out variations, after
which the student is often unable to get back to the original
position without considerable loss of time. Sometimes total
confusion ensues and the game must be retraced back to the start.
To avoid this problem, teachers who give phone lessons often
require their students to use a computer instead of a chessboard, in
that navigating from point to point on a computer is far easier than
trying to reconstruct a game by hand on an actual board. It both
saves time and reduces errors. 

Teachers who teach this way often send their students a disc
containing material for upcoming lessons. This further decreases
the possibility of errors while enabling the student to prepare ahead
of time, so more can be learned from the lesson. In fact, many
phone lessons are given simultaneously online, so that each
medium (telephone and Internet) can support the other.
Consequently, while there are many potential problems here, as
there are in most instructional situations, with preparation they can
be minimized or even averted. Some teachers succeed because
they have a knack of turning possible weaknesses into strengths, so
that the type of lesson becomes less important than how well it's
given. So pay your phone bill, and it's okay to let your son take
those lessons.

Question How do I go about looking for a chess tutor in my city?
There certainly aren't any in our Yellow Pages. Any tips as to
where to start? Adam Calloway (Canada)

Answer A couple of suggestions. If you hear of an upcoming
chess tournament in your area, go to the event and ask the
organizers and chessplayers for suggestions. You might even play
a few games while you're at it. I would also visit nearby chess
clubs and see what they have to offer. Scholastic chess clubs might
also be worth checking out, even if you are not in school, because
some youngsters have coaches or friends who take lessons. You
should also contact your own national chess federation. I'm sure
they can help you. But probably best would be to go on the
Internet and do a search for chess clubs. You should find lots of
helpful information, including chess chat rooms where you can ask
other fans what and who they know in your part of the world. If
you're pesky enough, this approach should eventually work.  

Question Hi, Bruce. I love your column the best. I find it very
interesting and informative. I have just started playing chess about
5 months ago. I am 17 and I am the top player in my school chess
club of about 18 members. I feel I am doing pretty good but I still
want to improve myself. What are your suggestions for me to
improve myself in chess? And just another question, in your recent
posting you said that mathematics is a strong influence on chess
players. But can you still be a good chess player if your
mathematics isn't good? Like in my example, I am not good in
math but I do enjoy chess, so do I have potential to become good
in chess? Ronald Tan (Canada)

Answer Let's deal with your second question first. Although chess
relies on logic and a feeling for spatial relations, the game is not
purely mathematical. Other talents are also needed to stand out.
British mathematician G.H. Hardy (1877-1947) summed this up
when he referred to chess as "trivial mathematics at best," and he
was a real chess fan. Now it's true that some people excel in both
disciplines, such as all-time great Emanuel Lasker, but I've never
seen a study establishing a correlation between the two. Hardy, for
example, was a patzer. Moreover, I know a few chessplayers who
have trouble counting. So don't worry about it. I'm sure you're
math is good enough.

Turning to your other question, about how to improve, the best
thing you can do is to play against strong opposition on a regular
basis. You should analyze your play in great detail and with total
objectivity, especially with the aid of strong chessplayers.  With
regard to book study, concentrate on tactics, always trying to solve
the problems without moving the pieces. Actually, don't even
bother setting them up on a board. Just do them directly from the
book and you'll avoid temptation. If during play you experience
particular difficulties with an opening or variation, that's when it
makes particular sense to turn to books for clarification or
reinforcement. We always learn better when our study corresponds
to previous experience. If you want it spelled out: play, analyze
your play, study related ideas, and repeat these first three steps
over and over. It's not quite trivial mathematics, but it's a formula
that's helped many chessplayers, so you can count on it.