  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.