  The Q & A Way
  by Bruce Pandolfini
  
  We All Have To Start Somewhere
  
  Question I have been playing chess again. I was having
  difficulty finding people to play with, so I brought my mini
  chess set to work one day and people started coming out of the
  woodwork. Now a bunch of us play during our lunch break.
  Last week I lost every game. Then, over the weekend, I was
  reading Josh Waitzkin's book. Today I won both games that I
  played during lunch. These are the first two games that I have
  ever won (besides my very first game, which must have been
  beginner's luck).
  
  My question is very similar to another person's question in
  your Chess Cafe Q & A column. I read chess books until I am
  blue in the face. Most of the time I do not know how to
  implement the ideas and strategies that I learn from the books
  during a real game. I think my problem is that I spend so much
  of my brain power trying to set up a game plan for myself that
  I never know what the other person is up to. How can you train
  yourself to think a couple of moves ahead when you don't even
  know where the other person is going to move? Sometimes I
  think that I am setting up a great strategy for myself only to
  find that my opponent has checkmated me in the meantime.
  This is why I intend to castle as soon as possible. Any tips on
  strategy for a newcomer? Also, what should my main objective
  be during the opening part of the game? (Donna Brophy, USA)
  
  Answer Start by trying to develop a routine. Begin with how
  you consider your opponent's moves. Let's say your opponent
  has just moved. If you're keeping score, and I'm not saying
  that you should, but if you are, write down the move before
  starting to analyze it. Otherwise, you may become so involved
  that you forget to record the move or wind up writing it
  inaccurately. You'll want to avoid such mistakes, for seeing
  empty spaces or constant smudges and erasures on your score
  sheets can be awfully unsettling. 
  
  Once your opponent has moved and, if you're keeping a
  record, after you've written it down, try to detect if you're
  being threatened. (Make sure you're clear on the meaning of
  the word "threat." Your opponent is threatening you if he is
  planning to harm you, such as by mating you or winning some
  of your material. He is not threatening you, however, if he has
  positioned himself to capture one of your pieces but you are
  able to respond to the planned capture without disadvantage.)
  If your opponent's last move doesn't apparently threaten
  anything, and if it doesn't seem to be particularly directed, then
  you can probably go on with other aspects of your analysis. If,
  on the other hand, the move does seem to be threatening, then
  you must see if you are adequately covered. Usually you can
  find out what's what by asking a set of internalized questions.
  These won't necessarily give you the answers, but they should
  steer you in the right direction and provide a better feel for the
  situation. 
  
  (Eventually, you won't have to articulate these questions at all.
  As you acquire experience, your mind will start to go through
  the give-and-take more comfortably. It's just that, before
  you've made the operation intuitive, you have to begin
  somewhere, and though this approach is artificial, it lays the
  groundwork for more natural reactions.) 
  
  However you conduct this internal discourse, you should use it
  to determine various things. In the case where your opponent's
  last move suddenly threatens one of your units, try to find out
  if you are defended enough times, if your defenders actually
  can take back, if the defenders are the right kinds for the chores
  at hand, if they are too burdened to take back without incurring
  attendant problems, and whatever else might be deemed
  relevant. Overriding all these general thoughts, nonetheless,
  should be hardcore analysis to verify the planned moves.
  
  Once you've satisfied this part of the analysis, return to
  pondering your opponent's move and commence asking
  yourself another group of questions. You might start with
  something like: "Did I issue a threat (or threats) with my own
  last move?" This or a similar question should function as a
  reminder to reestablish focus. Continuing on this path: "Does
  my opponent's move truly respond to mine?" If you had a
  threat (or threats), and your opponent's move responded to it
  (or them), this is one thing. But if you had a threat (or threats),
  and your opponent's move didn't address it (or them), that's
  quite another. You might be able to win immediately, before
  your opponent's own aims are achieved.
  
  Following through on this line of thought you might ask: "Can
  I ignore my opponent's last move and proceed with my own
  plans?" If you conclude that you can't ignore your opponent's
  last move, you will have to figure out how to cope with the
  danger while keeping alive your own previous designs. It
  would be great if you could reply to your opponent, keep your
  initial threat or threats (if you had any), and manage to issue
  still another threat. If you could do this, suddenly your
  opponent would be faced with multiple threats that might be
  insuperable. 
  
  (Always try to rebut your opponent's moves actively,
  answering them while generating counterthreats. This is an
  excellent way to steal the initiative and fuel a winning attack.).
  
  After completing your analysis, and after deciding on your next
  move, still don't play it yet. Instead, ask at least one more
  question: "Is there anything I may have missed?" Or "Is there
  anything I haven't considered, that could mess me up, such as
  an unexpected check or capture." Regardless how you ask the
  question, it should serve as a final check to reduce blunders.
  
  Get used to thinking three moves ahead (really three half
  moves). That is, try to visualize your next move without
  playing it. Then try to foresee your opponent's best response.
  Then try to figure out how you should reply to this anticipated
  move. If you can see these three half moves - your move, your
  opponent's move, your move again -- at least your head will be
  in the right place, poised for chess and its rigorous logic.
  
  As far as tips for conducting the opening phase, the basic ideas
  are well known. Play for the center, either by occupying it,
  guarding it, or influencing it. Develop your pieces (pawns are
  not considered to be pieces), move each piece just once, and
  avoid moving the same piece too often. Do not use the queen
  too early or too much (let bishops and knights do some of the
  work), and don't play needless pawn moves. Try to make
  mainly those that contribute to development. From early on,
  prepare to castle, and look to gain control of open lines
  (especially files and diagonals). Where possible, move with
  threats to keep the initiative or steal it, and be sure to respond
  to all your opponent's threats (you know, actually look at the
  other person's moves). Meanwhile, strive to stop your
  opponent from doing the same desirable things you're
  attempting to do (for example, prevent him from castling, if
  you can). Moreover, when the circumstances call for it, break
  any principle in favor of the correct move. Seek to understand
  your mistakes and why you lose. Be objective, give it your all
  while actually doing, and you'll always be at your best.
  
  Let's be frank. There's no magic here. Doing the right things  
  whatever they are   still doesn't guarantee playing a great
  game of chess. But if you are confident, and learn to trust your
  own judgments, you will enjoy the game a whole lot more. To
  realize this state, get into the habit of playing with thoughtful
  abandon. Don't be afraid to take calculated chances. And don't
  automatically assume that your opponent has some deep
  scheme in mind. If you play with such freedom, either of two
  good things will happen. Either your plans will succeed, and
  you will win, or they will fail, and you will learn something.
  
  Question I have some of your books as well as others, but I
  never had one explain on how you go from Master to IM to FM
  or GM . Do you have to take tests or exams to get from wood
  pusher? (Ronald F.Stanek, USA)
  
  Answer I'm with you. I've never seen a book that could help
  one reach the grandmaster level, whether by method or test.
  But there are lots of great puzzle books to enjoy and from
  which to benefit. Bruce Alberston, Lev Alburt, A. J. Gillam,
  Laszlo Polgar and Fred Reinfeld are just some of the people
  who offer nice collections of problems. The puzzles from any
  of their appropriate works should provide you with hours of
  pleasure, while actually sharpening your skills. Good luck on
  your test quest.
  
  Question In many books for beginners (I'm thinking of one
  guy in particular who has written quite a few), the first kind of
  chess opening that is taught is the double e-pawn opening   for
  the very good reasons, I suppose, that these are the easiest to
  comprehend in terms of tactics and that these illustrate the
  basics of good opening play in the most straightforward way.
  But what is a poor player to do when she or he has been
  absorbing such material, and the dastardly opponent insists on
  opening (as White) with 1.Nf3 or 1.b3 or something like that?
  To say "play good common-sense developing moves" may not
  exactly cut it   those are the kind of moves some of these
  openings are designed to take advantage of. Another way of
  putting this question may be: after you make the double-e-
  pawn openings part of your repertoire, what do you learn next?
  How do you prepare for serious tournament/chess club play?
  My own solution to this problem has been to adopt a player
  (Boris Spassky for me) and look closely at his repertoire and
  adapt it to my own (that means, for White: King's Gambits
  whenever possible   both the Bishop's Gambit as well as the
  Knight's   and for Black an off-beat variation of the Ruy and
  sometimes the Latvian Gambit (which Spassky played a couple
  of times) and the Tarrasch against d4. Against the offbeat (read
  "nonclassical") moves listed above, I take up the challenge and
  play the classical developing moves and say, "Let's go at it.").
  (Brenan Nierman, USA)
  
  Answer You start by talking about chess books for beginners,
  but it's not clear what you mean by the term "beginner." When
  most chess teachers refer to beginners, they mean rank
  beginners or near rank beginners. These are adults and children
  who need to learn, or learn more about, moves, rules, and the
  most elementary chess concepts. I hope you do not intend to
  include in this group unknowledgeable people who've been
  playing the game for awhile, but who remain unschooled on its
  finer points. Nor should you include in this category, it seems
  to me, experienced players who play terribly. These players
  may play as if they've just learned, but they're not beginners
  either. I think many of them might find the term "beginner"
  disparaging, and I do not suppose (correct me if I'm wrong)
  that you intend to insult anyone. 
  
  Accordingly, chess books for true beginners tend to present
  moves, rules, and a few basic principles, nothing more. They
  almost never go into great detail on any opening in particular,
  even double king-pawns. So I'm going to assume that you
  don't mean books for beginners. Instead it appears that you are
  actually talking about books for casual and average players
  who have never really gotten any better, experienced amateurs
  and tournament players who seem to be in a rut, and other
  similar kinds of chess combatants who want to improve their
  game. These people have virtually no interest in moves and
  rules. Rather they want to better their already existing level of
  play, so they will probably require more sophisticated texts,
  including books that concentrate on the opening phase, such as
  treatises on specific openings and variations. 
  
  It's easy enough to agree with your point when you say that
  most books for beginners (though, again, it's obvious you
  don't mean beginners, but something like amateurs or casual
  players) advise using double e-pawn games, because "these are
  the easiest to comprehend in terms of tactics" and also because
  they "illustrate the basics of good opening play in the most
  straightforward way." But then you add that this will not help
  if the opponent begins with "1. Nf3 or 1. b3 or something like
  that," when you imply that "common sense developing moves"
  might be refuted because they "may not exactly cut it." 
  
  Something is not quite right here. Of course common sense
  developing moves will probably fail against more polished
  beginnings, as would trying to hit a Pedro Martinez fastball
  with a little league bat. But what else can an unschooled player
  (forget about a beginner) do other than to use common sense?
  Should he instead respond with state of the art precision? No,
  of course not. He can't. Such knowledge is the province of the
  strong, experienced player. The casual player, because there
  really isn't any other avenue open to him, must rely on
  common sense, and even if he gets crushed by his opponent's
  greater expertise, at least he can learn something and thereby
  hope to become stronger. After the game, after his common
  sense and limited know-how have probably failed, he can ask
  questions or go back to the books. He can attempt to find out
  the right moves and nurture his developing education.
  
  Common sense and general principles must be relied on when
  one doesn't have exact knowledge. When one does know what
  to do, he does it. In life, we may learn some simple specific
  things first, but it's hard to be specific at a higher level when
  one doesn't know how to be general at any level. It would be
  nonsensical for writers of introductory chess books seriously to
  entertain the idea of replacing, for instance, the game Morphy
  vs. the Duke and the Count, as antediluvian and overused as it
  is, with an avant-garde positional masterpiece in Reti's
  Opening from a recent Slovenian Championship. 
  
  You go on to say, it would seem tendentiously, that "Another
  way of putting this question may be: after you make the double
  e-pawn openings part of your repertoire, what do you learn
  next?" (I'm assuming you mean, what should you learn next?)
  Anyhow, this in not a true rephrasing of your earlier
  question/statement. It's an entirely different
  question/statement. I would address it by saying that you
  should study anything you like. Just go where your interests
  take you. If you're not really getting anywhere, there's a
  chance it has less to do with what you're studying and more
  with how you're studying. Use your time effectively, and
  you'll probably increase understanding, win a higher
  percentage of games, and actually relish the entire experience a
  lot more. Your next question, about preparing for tournament
  play, will be considered in a future column. 
  
  Finally, you give a piece of advice yourself, which is to
  assume, at least partially, a particular player's opening
  repertoire. This, it turns out, is an excellent idea, and I heartily
  endorse it, as do many chess teachers. It's essentially what
  Bobby Fischer did when in his youth he adopted some of Isaac
  Boleslavsky's favorite lines (without, of course, playing 1. d2-
  d4). May you have Fischer-like success in all your future chess
  endeavors.
  
  Question I have heard about people playing blindfold chess
  (without view of the board). My question is are some people
  born with this ability or is there a way to train to do it? (Valerio
  Cassimatis, Canada)
  
  Answer Yes, some people do seem to be born with an innate
  propensity for visualization, which can translate to an ability
  for blindfold chess if life so directs. But the skill can also be
  enhanced by experience and proper training. Indeed, there are
  techniques one can tap to aid performance, but these in no way
  can replace real talent. They can only supplement it. Here's
  what I do with my own students, some of whom are young
  children, just to make them more at ease with doing things in
  their heads. 
  
  First of all, I insist they always analyze without moving the
  pieces, no matter how hard the position. If they have difficulty,
  I help them along and try to guide them through it. After
  awhile they naturally become more comfortable by virtue of
  automatically analyzing in their heads all the time.
  
  I especially encourage them to become familiar with the board,
  including its lines, colors, connection points, and key squares.
  As far as playing a whole game in their heads, I try to get them
  to do a number of particular things in our practice sessions: to
  visualize the move being played; to say the move in algebraic
  notation, and sometimes additionally in descriptive notation (I
  won't let them say things like "now I want to go here," and
  they point to a square   this is unacceptable); to make all kinds
  of associations, where, after indicating a move, they identify
  supportive pieces, relations between pieces and squares, future
  possibilities, and any other germane information; to classify
  potential tactics or themes that seem to be relevant to the
  developing situation; finally, to give a very definite reason for
  playing the candidate move, to explain it in context of the
  entire game.
  
  This last task is the crux of the method. The idea is to create a
  narrative, a storyline, where all the story's facts are connected
  by logic. By taking these steps (visualizing the move, saying it,
  describing it, with lots of classification, and explaining it,
  especially by creating a storyline), one has a number of
  different linchpins to fall back on in order to play through a
  game without sight of the board. 
  
  (Actually, this technique is not new. Many chess concepts and
  classic games are taught by narrative, where the presenter tries
  to convince us that the contest was won by virtue of a grand
  design. The reality may be nothing like this, of course, but
  that's how chess writers and teachers often illustrate the
  material, attempting to unify it and make it memorable.) 
  
  Let me reiterate: Doing these things will not, in themselves,
  produce a great blindfold player. But if you have no particular
  visual skill to start with, or if you do and simply want to arm
  yourself to the teeth with memory tools, using a method such
  as this lends structure to the process and augments whatever
  native aptitude one has. Just because you have talent doesn't
  mean you shouldn't also have technique. Maybe George
  Koltanowski doesn't rely on associative tricks, but how many
  of him are there?
  
  Question My sons are four and two years old. I suggest the
  older one can start playing chess now. Indeed, we tried to play
  some games. But I cannot remember how I learnt chess playing
  and I am afraid of frustrating my son in using all the pieces.
  Have you any hint teaching little children for me ? Or are there
  any good chess books for young beginners? (Tom Dette,
  Germany)
  
  Answer I understand your concern about using all the pieces,
  and how this might be confusing. Judge the situation for
  yourself. If, in teaching your son, you feel that too much
  information at first might lead to overload, then hold back a
  bit. There's nothing wrong with proceeding inchmeal,
  inventing chesslike activities and puzzles that use fewer pieces
  to introduce the real game gradually. You can always expand
  or correct the youngster's understanding over the course of
  time. There are rules by which to play chess, not to teach it.
  
  However you do it, try to offer a totally fun experience. Make
  the game seem both exciting and important. Avoid debilitating
  competitions. Build confidence, which is the secret of all good
  teaching. If you teach by playing   not a bad idea   don't play
  to win. Play to teach. You may feel this is untruthful, and not
  the way of the world, but there's plenty of time for truth and
  reality. 
  
  A child has a right to be a child, but if you insist on playing for
  real, you can still do it gently and compassionately. You can
  even be creative. For instance, when you're playing a
  youngster, and it comes to the point of winning, you might say:
  "Here I can win in one move. If you can show me how, you
  win. If you can't, I win. Take your time and find the right
  answer. And if you tell me how to win, without moving the
  pieces, you win twice." Such an approach can keep a student
  involved to the very end of the session, and it encourages
  analysis in the head. It also allows you to play an actual game,
  without having to lose on purpose, while giving the young one
  a means to save face. But the truth is, within reason, it almost
  doesn't matter what the teacher does, as long he shares his love
  for the subject with the student. 
  
  You ask about chess books for children. There are a number of
  good texts for kids, but instead I'm going to suggest one
  created for parents and teachers, George Francis Kane's Chess
  and Children. Published in 1974, this is a brilliant pathfinding
  work, written by one of the best chess teachers there ever was.
  It's worth making the effort to track down. 
  
  A final piece of advice. If you can associate your child with a
  great teacher, no matter the discipline, whether it's chess or
  anything else, do so. It's always worth it. How will you
  recognize a great teacher? Don't worry. You will.
  
  Question I would like to forward to you a question that has
  been puzzling my mind for a very long time now. In the Ruy
  Lopez, many variations start off like this: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
  3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4, and now Black has several options. But after
  Black's fourth move (4...Nf6, 4...d6, etc.) and the appropriate
  White reply to it, very often Black decides to play b7-b5
  anyway (on the 5th, 6th or 7th move or so).
  
  The question is: If Black intends to play b7-b5 anyway, why
  not immediately do so on the 4th move? I'm not pleading in
  favour of an immediate b5, I can easily live with delaying it
  myself, it's just that I'm curious about it. (Marja Vercammen,
  Belgium)
  
  Answer While this variation has been essayed in serious
  events, its unsound look has generally dissuaded strong players
  from including it in their standard repertory. What I would say
  about it to my own students would be something like this. 
  
  By playing 4...b7-b5, instead of waiting to a later point, when
  circumstances might be slightly more favorable, Black decides
  to thwart the possibility of capture on c6 once and for all. But
  after the bishop is forced back to b3, the position resembles an
  Italian Game (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4), with two important
  advantages for White. His bishop is safer at b3 than it is at c4
  (where it can be attacked with tempo by either d7-d5 or Nc6-
  a5); and, by playing b7-b5, Black has accepted certain
  weaknesses, especially along the d5-a8 diagonal, which he
  doesn't have in the Italian. In fact, after 5. Bb3, Black is
  practically compelled to go after the bishop with 5...Nc6-a5,
  which weakens control of e5 and d4. This makes it much easier
  for White to open with d2-d4. If Black plays 5...Nf6, he then
  runs into the dangerous 6. Nf3-g5, when the intrusion of the
  knight here is more annoying than in the Italian. So if you want
  to play an early b7-b5, before the situation stabilizes, fine.
  Make sure you understand the corresponding problems that
  could arise, however, otherwise you may find yourself in
  trouble fast. This may not be the answer you were seeking, but
  it's the guidance I would offer my own students, and practical
  advice is what most of us live by.
  
  Reader Response The following e-mail from Glenn Petersen
  was written in response to the previous column. It is
  particularly informative, and I would like to share it with you.
  
  "No one is that old" is the heading for your first question,
  which dealt with promoting a pawn. The reader was under the
  misconception that he was limited to choosing from the pieces
  that had been captured by his opponent.
  
  That probably was a "local" rule at some point in the history of
  the game, and I assume that is what you were driving at when
  you chose the header. Modern rules have pretty much been
  standardized for the last two hundred years, and no one could
  be that old. We do know that at one time pawns could only
  promote to the piece on the file they began on: knight pawns to
  knights, elephant pawns to elephants (yes, it was a long time
  ago) and that may have been the basis for the "local rule" and
  misunderstanding. I say that because . . .
  
  During the same time period, various rules existed for the
  game, even within different regions of India. For instance,
  whoever moved first had the option of making four to nine
  moves simultaneously. The number of moves was agreed upon,
  and the pieces did not cross the middle of the board. This
  became infused with the newer pawn moves, the double-step.
  The pawn moves one or two squares on its first move, a new
  concept to speed up the game (long after it was decided to
  alternate moves between players).
  
  When Atlantic City's Caesars Palace sponsored a simultaneous
  exhibition for Kosovoan refugees housed at Fort Dix, New
  Jersey, the exhibiting master, Glenn Umstead, ran into a
  similar situation concerning "localized" rules. In Kosovo,
  White moves twice! How this rule came into being, we'll never
  know. I believe it is the result of an older rule (simultaneous
  moves by white) being influenced by newer rules (pawn
  moving one or two squares) and a compromise being reached.
  Why not move a pawn one square and then move a piece?
  
  We know it is not a new wrinkle; they've been playing this way
  for hundreds of years prior to what we consider to be the
  emergence of the modern game. So maybe "No One Can Be
  That Old" should be replaced with "No One Has To Be That
  Old." 
  
  Mr. Petersen, the editor of Chess Life, adds: "Giving Check to
  the Queen" is another rule that survives to this day in various
  parts of the USA! "You didn't say 'En Garde' when you
  attacked my queen!" You'd be surprised at the number of times
  that question is asked by new USCF members. "But that's the
  way I was taught."
  
  Thank you, Glenn. Permit me to throw into the mix a few other popular 
misconceptions, including "a king can't take a king;" you can only promote to 
a piece that's previously been captured (as discussed in the original 
column); that you don't have to move the piece if you haven't
  taken your hand off it; and that you don't have to play by a rule
  if it hadn't been "called" earlier. I hear these things all the
  time, along with other numerous pearls of misguided or
  misinformed wisdom.