The Q & A Way
by Bruce Pandolfini

Write Or Wrong

Question I notice that you always compliment Fred Reinfeld and
leave out Irving Chernev. Is there a reason for this? Also, your
name is usually grouped with today's other chess popularizers,
writers like Ray Keene, Andy Soltis, Yasser Seirawan, and Eric
Schiller. How do you think you compare to them? Is it proper to
call any of you the new Reinfeld?
(Clarence Berman, England)

Answer I don't always compliment Fred Reinfeld. I think many
things appearing under his name are jejune rehashings. But I do
think at his best he was a real craftsman.  You're right, however,
about Irving Chernev. Unconsciously I have often left him out of
my recommendations, and this was patently unfair. He wrote some
great chess books. Like Reinfeld, he also conveyed a passion for
the game. 

Chess "writing" can be strained and artificial. It typically consists
of linking contrived judgments and superficial variations with
connective phrases and cliches. Real writing is James Joyce,
Marcel Proust, Franz Kafka, Vladimir Nabokov, John Updike, and
the like. No chess writer compares to any of the above. 

So thanks for your consideration, but I am less a writer and more  a
chess teacher specializing in teaching young children. As far as
putting me on the list of today's popularizing, chess-writing elite,
obviously I have to question this inclusion. I find most of my
scribblings and jottings to be detestable and without redeeming
value, and I am not alone in this assessment.

Yasser Seirawan has been America's leading chess professional for 
years. As a player, journalist, popularizer, teacher, and writer 
he has contributed much to the game. Andy Soltis has written some 
books that have become classics. Personally I think Andy's column 
in Chess Life is the  best in this country in that it successfully 
reaches the widest range of players. 

Perhaps these two writers are entitled to share some of Reinfeld's 
mantle. If so, it would also be reasonable to add to this stellar 
club Jeremy Silman, John Donaldson, Larry Evans, Nikolay Minev, 
Iakov Neishstadt, Edmar Mednis, A J Gillam, John Walker, Bruce 
Alberston, Fred Wilson, Daniel King, Julian Hodgson, Murray Chandler, 
and Caissa knows who else. 

Nor should we overlook those who concentrate on advanced
material. John Nunn, John Watson, Alex Yermolinsky, Amatzia
Avni, and Mark Dvoretsky come to mind. Haven't they also
served to popularize the game by showing its art and true science
and by trying to inspire all of us to conquer the highest peak? And
what about all the superb contemporary writers left out of this
discussion? They too have spurred the growth and evolution of the
game, along with icons of chess writing from earlier times
(Alekhine, Botvinnik, Reti, Nimzovich, Capablanca, Tarrasch,
Lasker, Tartakover, Keres, and so on). Most of my ideas come
from them and a couple of hundred other writers, so anyone
impressed by my "writing" is really showing admiration for them.


Question I am a 42-year old Life Master. I am a professional chess
teacher, and also one of the managers at one of the more famous
chess clubs in New York. I've written a few chess articles, mostly
for the local state magazine, but have not produced anything that
has won an award, or could be considered particularly exceptional
in terms of chess content in my 15 years of writing. I own one of
the larger chess libraries (over 1500 volumes), including a number
of your books, and I often find myself wondering, what does it
actually take to write one of these chess books. You've written a
lot of chess books, so perhaps you could give me a few pointers,
such as developing a concept, avoiding writer's block, finding a
publisher, negotiating the contract, and keeping to a deadline, on
the way toward becoming a first-time chess book author?
(Larry Tamarkin, USA)

Answer You seem to be following in my footsteps. Although I'm
older than you, and not a Life Master, I'm a professional chess
teacher, I've been a manager at a prestigious New York chess club,
and I've also written for several state organizations without ever
winning an award. Moreover, my chess library exceeds 1,500
volumes and it too contains a number of titles by Bruce Pandolfini.


You could probably give me some ideas on what books to do, but
if you really want my advice, try to think of something that really
interests you. You'll do a much better job. If you're suffering from
writer's block, just get it down, even if it sounds ridiculous. You
can improve it later. 

To propose your concept, try to describe it in a single paragraph.
The entire presentation shouldn't exceed one page. Do it right and
you won't need to submit a resume, for your concept will sell
itself. It shouldn't matter who you are. 

I wouldn't worry about negotiating contract terms, because first
time authors have little input over what they're going to be offered.
Even having a great agent won't mean much when trying to
market a chess book. I recommend, by the way, that you find a
publisher specializing in chess. General publishers are notorious
for not giving chess writers the time of day. Finally, if you wind up
getting a deal, the deadline should take care of itself. After all,
you'll want your book to come out and you'll need to be paid. 

If this advice doesn't direct you to the right address, I suggest you
also send your question to Eric Schiller, Yasser Seirawan, Andy
Soltis, and Ray Keene. They know a lot about chess books and I'm
sure they can tell you where to go.


Question A master at my chess club (Alan Bennett at Wachusett
CC, Leominster, MA) mentioned the line 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3
f5!? as being tough for White to handle at least over the board. The
last couple of times that I've played the King's Gambit on the
Internet Chess Club, my opponents have played 
2. . . Nc6 and I've opted for 3. d3 figuring that they've analyzed
the Nf3 f5 line more than I have. Why the sudden popularity of
this opening? Do you think it is a good line for Black?
(Dave Couture, USA)

Answer Indeed the line is becoming popular, probably because it
hasn't yet been analyzed to death and also because it contains a
little bite for the unwary. Although it verges on unsoundness it
may not be such a bad choice to confuse an unsuspecting
opponent. But you should also pass this question on to Gary Lane.
He'll give you a real answer.


Question There are some ways to put 8 pawns on the chess board
so that they don't attack each other, considering them as queens.
It's kind of hard to explain. I hope you know what I mean. An
example: a2, b5, c7, d4, e1, f8, g6, h3, Do you know how many
possibilities there are to do this?
(Sergio Bossoni, Switzerland)

Answer You're referring to the eight-queens problem. At one time
or another everyone tries his or her hand at this puzzle. Its solution
was worked out in 1850 by Dr. Nauck. If memory serves me right,
there are twelve unique answers. With reflections and reversals I
believe the number increases to 92. A related problem concerns the
fewest number of queens needed to guard every square on the
chessboard. The answer is five, there are numerous variations, and
many people have explored this one too, from Sam Loyd to Henry
Dudeney to the famous mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss to
thousands of school kids across the planet. 


Question I played correspondence chess for several years but
discontinued it because I felt that I was playing against my
opponent's computer (weak players were suddenly playing like
masters) on many occasions. My question is what is your view of
the computer on OTB chess? Do you see it helping or ruining the
game, especially at the top level of play?
(Jefferson Green, USA)

Answer I understand your frustration. Who wouldn't be upset with
an opponent who flagrantly violates the principle of fair play? But
let's be honest. Correspondence players commonly look up lines in
opening books during competition, while others get advice from
strong players. Turning to a computer for help is just more of
business as usual. Since this kind of thing can't be monitored,
weird logic has made this the standard approach, even in some
tournaments. Still, if you intend to utilize outside help, etiquette
requires that you notify your opponent up front. At least he or she
could then make an informed decision to play or not. 

Why would a player want to receive such assistance? There are a
number of reasons, chief among them being for instructional
purposes. It's simply a great way to learn, though I empathize with
those who wish to play just for fun and couldn't care one little bit
about helping the other player learn anything. 

Finally, with regard to your question about whether the use of
computers will ruin the game, especially at the top level, I can
appreciate your concerns. Computers truly can be Frankenstein
monsters, but they also can be wizards of positive power. We'll
just have to wait and see.


Question First, I'd like to say I'm a fan of your works, and of your
advice that I've read.  I was a little concerned when about 75% of
the questions being asked were from chess teachers, but decided to
send in my question anyway.  I'm a rather poor player (currently,
about 1450) who's trying to get better.  Lately, however, it seems
like the harder I try, the worse I get; the more I think on a move,
the more I over-think, and make a mistake.  Sometimes, in a game,
I'm unable to think at all, other than the first move.  My rating has
gone down at least 150 points in the last 6 days, all due to the most
simple and ugly blunders in my life.  I don't (nor really can afford)
to take lessons from a tutor, so I've been picking up as many books
as I can, but I find myself completely baffled by some of the
moves.  Most of the time (especially in end game books), I feel
like I have the subject down packed, then when the times comes...I
lose.  Am I doing something wrong?  Thanks for your time.
(Jeremy Tartaglia, USA)

Answer Numerically, 1450 is not a poor rating. It's an average
rating, not a mark of dread. The way you describe it, however,
suggests that you are very tough on yourself.  Perhaps you've been
expecting too much, and it does appear as if you've been pressing,
which makes it additionally hard to succeed.   

From what you say it also seems as if you've been playing
excessively, especially if you've dropped 150 points in the last six
days. You even understand why you've lost. You say you've been
blundering. This implies that your mind is not on what you're
doing, and maybe you've been distracted while playing. If so, no
wonder you've been missing things.

I also understand that you haven't taken any lessons, and that to
compensate for this lack of constructive criticism you've been
picking up a variety of chess books. A potential problem is that
some of these may be in conflict with each other, which would
only confuse you further. Nobody could play at his or her best
under these conditions, with such uncertainty. Doubt yourself and
there's no doubt you're in trouble.

Why don't you get back to basics? I'm not talking about the
fundamentals of chess so much as the rationale for playing at all. I
presume you turned to chess originally for the fun of partaking in
an intellectually stimulating pastime and because you were
attracted to the game's positive spirit of competition and its
creative aspects. These are the basics I mean. You have to get back
to them. Instead of being concerned so much with getting better,
try to get in tune with the sheer pleasure of play.  Quit worrying so
much about rating and all that stuff.  It's only a number, and even
the greatest number pales before human happiness.

Here's my advice. Take a break, at least for a few weeks. Try to do
some other things you really enjoy. See a couple of movies, read a
book for fun, sleep an extra hour or two a day, enjoy the sun and
walking through a beautiful garden -- whatever. After this rebirth
perhaps you'll be eager to get back to chess on a new course, and
don't be surprised if the new path resembles the old one without
the weeds.


Question I am wondering how much homework you expect your
students to do.  Since taking up chess teaching part time, I have
been surprised to find bright youngsters in the 9 to 11 year range
who seem to genuinely enjoy the game and their lessons, but show
no interest in doing book work outside of lessons.  The kind of
homework I believe most useful at the 800-1000 rating level is the
solution of combinations.  A somewhat less conventional
homework assignment I have used is the outright memorization of
games such as those in Laszlo Polgar's "Chess" and Chernev's
"Logical Chess Move by Move".  One motivational tool I have
used when homework wasn't done was just to have the offender do
it during lesson time.  And on one occasion I just canceled the
lesson.  There is no haranguing or berating the students for these
lapses; I just let them know what is expected.  Getting back to the
question I have for you: How much homework do you expect of
your pre-teen students, and how do you handle it when they don't
do it? (Bob Musicant, Norwalk, Connnecticut)

Answer I expect my students to do very little homework, so I
almost never give any. Most of them play chess for sport and
recreation, whereas they are likely to abandon the game once it
resembles school. When I do give homework it's in line with your
approach, in that it's tactical, with problems offered in related
blocks of four. Occasionally I require games, opening traps, or
useful endgame positions to be memorized, though I keep such
tasks to a minimum.  

It really used to bother me when students didn't complete my
homework assignments. Even worse would be when the work
sheets were left on the floor of the classroom, never to be taken
home. It would irritate me more so when parents would come to
me wondering why I never gave homework. 

I dealt with this by making students sign everything as soon as
they got it. Then at least I could defend myself by presenting
certain parents a packet of their son's or daughter's signed,
stepped-on, unanswered homework sheets. But naturally these
particular parents were curious why I didn't call and discuss it with
them. Since I didn't want to spend most evenings grading and calling, 
I decided to give very little homework. This would afford me enough 
time to mark, call, and watch television.

I became concerned with homework early in my career when I
realized that in trying to satisfy parental needs for drilling I
actually drove away some of my best and most talented students.
This is why, when I give homework these days, it's usually to
assign tactical books that my students can work through at their
own pace. Their reward is finishing the book, not certificates,
medals, trophies, or the like. 

You sound like a concerned, intelligent teacher. Don't lose sight of
the real value of chess. By virtue of playing a game we can learn
things about ourselves and others that have lifelong value. Let's
not kill these opportunities by turning play into a chore.