The Q & A Way
The Q & A Way is based in large part on readers' questions. Do you have a
question about preparation, strategy or tactics? Submit your questions (with
you full name and country of residence please) and perhaps Bruce will reply in
his next Chess Cafe column...
Yes, I have a question for Bruce!
How Big Is Big?
Question For many years I have been involved in many sports hockey,
The Q & A
baseball, swimming, chess, football, and so on but I am always
amazed/shocked about the size of chess trophies!!! They are huge!!!!! In fact
some are bigger-taller than the kids who receive them! Chess trophies take the
Way
Gold medal in size among any sport that I know. Why? If size matters, chess is
Bruce Pandolfini
the sport to get involved in!!!! Please explain this. Thanks. John Henry
(Canada)
Answer I m not sure I agree with your premise. I don t think chess trophies are
larger than trophies given in other activities. True, the larger ones are larger, but
the smaller ones are smaller. And let s not overlook something (considering the
size of some trophies, I m not sure how anyone could). The wide world of sports
bestows incredible awards I mean bigger than people -- including life size
goalies and golden slam-dunkers as big as Shaq. Humungous objects are not just
given out in sports, but for many unrelated activities, such as sitting at a desk for
a certain number of years. And you don t necessarily have to be a standout in
sitting at a desk either. Just put your time in and join the crowd.
I will grant, however, that the number of chess trophies presented in recent years
has proliferated. When you ask top chessplayers from the past about their
trophies, they think you re joking. They can t remember winning too many,
even when they won.
What happened is this: chess organizers (if you ask them, among the smartest
organizers going), got even wiser. They saw what their brother and sister
organizers in baseball, soccer, football, basketball, hockey, tennis, golf, and
punch ball were doing, and they realized chess was missing out on a gold mine.
So they started using these baubles and gaudy trinkets of achievement to their
own advantage. It s true that chess trophies tend to be flimsier, but the kids,
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (1 of 7) [1/25/2005 10:29:53 AM]
The Q & A Way
although they re not unaware of the ersatz quality of what they re getting, want
them anyway. But if you re asking me if I think there should be so much
emphasis on winning trophies, I d have to answer no. It gives the wrong
message, though I m not sure what the message is, or should be. I have to find
out more about these trophies. Let me talk to this organizer I know.
Question I am a fairly good player for my age (13, rating 1500+) and I have
bought some opening books about solid openings such as the Caro Kann and
1.d4. Now I want to start with middlegame books, but I don't know which book
to buy. Should it be one about strategy, tactics, combinations, positional chess,
or just an endgame book. I already have The Road to Chess Improvement by
Yermo and I don't know how to continue. And also, could you please give a
recommendation on which book to buy? Vladan Nikolic (Sweden)
Answer There is no one middlegame book or, for that matter, any book on any
aspect of chess -- that s essential. Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn t
know or worse, does, and is trying to mislead you. That doesn t mean there
aren t plenty of great books out there. Even the bad ones are fairly good. They
have chess positions in them, and that s lure enough for most of us. I d read
them all if I could, and I d read them several times at that. But obviously that s
impractical and impossible (I think).
If I had to make recommendations (apparently, the time has finally come for
that), I d suggest you do plenty of tactical exercises, always trying to solve the
puzzles without moving the pieces. The books of Wilson and Alberston are
excellent for that purpose.
Bone up on your endgame play. You can t get enough of that. Averbakh s Chess
Endings Essential Knowledge is a good starting point. Also, you might take the
time to play over game collections of players you admire (there must be a
couple of guys). We always do better and derive more when we use material that
excites us.
That s the feeling you want to have, to be stimulated and motivated. Take that
energy to a library or a large book store. Look at all the books, title after title,
and see which ones appeal to you. (I d sample the books by taking them out of
the library first. If you come to love a particular one, and want to add it to your
collection, you can then buy it. If you wind up hating a book, you can just return
it to the library at no cost, with or without marginal scribbling.) The hands-on
approach tends to be more reliable than the advice of those who consider
themselves reliable. (I don t trust what I have to say, so that doesn t include me.)
You can go far in this world when you rely on your own talents and intuition. In
your case, they seem to be considerable. If chess teaches us anything it s that we
can do it on our own, and that s part of the fun of it. But look, if you can use
other people, and have even more fun, don t let me stop you.
Question Bruce, have you ever looked at the position on the cover of Lasker's
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (2 of 7) [1/25/2005 10:29:53 AM]
The Q & A Way
Manual of Chess? I think this came up before but please refresh me with the
solution (or is Lasker lost there??). Bob Ali (USA)
Answer Lost, or lost in thought? I haven t looked at that position in years (other
than the time I may have already answered this question), not that I haven t
thought about it. For one, if my memory serves me right (I can t seem to find
my actual copy), it s not a full position. Furthermore, in the edition I had, I don t
think it was even a legal position. I recall a dark square being on the right. Since
Lasker and those who loved and admired him must have known about the light-
on-the-right rule, I m going to assume that a gifted person in the art department
flipped the negative. Would you care to join me in that assumption?
Question I'm a young chess player, 20 years, to be specific, and though I've
known how to play chess for most of that time, I haven't taken it seriously until
just recently. I find it difficult not to be discouraged by how the greatest players
in the world seem to be very thoroughly exposed to the game at a very early
age. My questions are these: What players have achieved world class play,
without beginning their training as a child? What can I do to help my odds of
excelling, without the learning energies of a child? Brian Redmond (USA)
Answer Your question is a very popular one, so popular that it has led me to an
inescapable conclusion: There are more adults than children on Earth or many
adults wish either they were children or not on Earth.
I would be lying to you if I were to say learning chess at any early age doesn t
generally help. I must also admit that I can t think of anyone who became world
class strength (I mean, really strong), who didn t learn before the age of 13.
Sure, we could come up with a few names, as I have in the past, but that would
only offer false hope.
Let me make another suggestion. Instead of aiming to become world class, why
don t you strive for a more reasonable ambition, to get better? Isn t that why you
play chess -- to improve steadily while experiencing the pleasure of mental
stimulation? That s easy enough to do. You can make progress by playing
slightly superior opposition on a regular basis. You might very well lose a few
more than you win, but you ll undoubtedly learn a lot more along the way.
At least learning from your losses is a more reasonable expectation than aiming
to be the best there ever was. You may fail with the first approach and still gain.
Relying on the second plan for your future might set you up for failure without
any profit. Just go out there and play chess. If improvement is to happen (and in
your case I have no reason to doubt it won t), it will take care of itself, as you re
playing and being challenged. Nevertheless, whatever you do, don t be
discouraged by not being able to play like Bobby Fischer. Not even he can do
that, and look how much time and practice he s had at it.
Question I received a chess game for Christmas this year and I haven't got a
clue how to play the game. What can you suggest to get me started? Joyce
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (3 of 7) [1/25/2005 10:29:53 AM]
The Q & A Way
Layman (Canada)
Answer You can find the rules all over the Internet: just type in rules of chess.
You can also find basics, principles, tactics, strategies, and all kinds of advice on
how to get off to a good start. You can even get practice opponents there,
whether it s through Yahoo, ICC, or Chessgames.com, or any of the other online
playing sites. If you want to follow up with actual books, go to the library and
take out four volumes that seem appealing, as long as they clearly indicate
they re for beginners. Read them at the same time, comparing, step-by-step, how
the same points are covered in each of them. By the end of that exercise you
should know how to play chess. And if you don t, at least you may have laid the
groundwork for being able to give your first simultaneous exhibition.
Question I have a question regarding openings in general which bothers me
ever since I started playing chess some 15 years ago. I hope it has not been
asked before and that you can help me. The question is about specializing in the
opening. Do you consider it necessary for amateurs (lets say 1600-2300 Elo) to
specialize in the openings to improve one s rating? I (29, ELO 2200) have
specialized for a certain period, it worked quite well, but after some time I
became bored by the same old positions over and over again.
So I thought my chess needed a change. Then I started playing new openings
that fascinated me and my results were also quite okay, admittedly not as well as
before. I soon realized that I had some difficulties playing the middlegame and
thus spent more time on the clock as I did not know all the typical plans for all
the openings I played. And I can say I played almost every opening there is
since there is so much that is interesting to discover in chess!
Whenever I see an interesting idea or suggestion - from ChessCafe or Chess
publishing for example - I would like to try it out immediately! A (bad?) habit I
seem to share with Carsten Hansen and sure many others, obviously. I am well
aware of the advantages and disadvantages of specialization (deeper
understanding of the resulting middlegames and endgames, knowing the typical
plans, etc. on the one hand, one-sided and much less creative play, limiting ones
own chess-horizon on the other hand), but what is your suggestion to stay fresh?
I read Giddins book about building an opening repertoire where he indeed
discusses this subject, but I fear that anybody has to find out about for him- or
herself!? Even strong GMs seem to have very different opinions on this, but I
am speaking about amateurs.
Is it okay (and wise!) in your eyes to change to another opening if you know
your opponent really well? You can then cut down his preparation and surprise
him, but you may even find yourself in a middlegame which is not 100% to your
taste. And what about playing in tournaments? Do you suggest one should
prepare only one opening which you will play throughout the whole tournament
(e.g. 1. d4 for white, Sicilian Najdorf and King s Indian for black) or just play
whatever comes to your mind, to just play? My experience tells me that if you
want to have fun and fresh positions on the board, you should play just any
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (4 of 7) [1/25/2005 10:29:53 AM]
The Q & A Way
opening that you like, but only in non-rated or blitz/rapid-games. If you really
want to improve your rating, one should specialize. But if this is really true, I do
not know! When you get bored, you may change to a different variation, e.g.
from the Najdorf to the Scheveningen as suggested by Giddins and not change
the opening completely. What do you think? Is it possible to play non-
specialized, fresh and creative and just to rely on one s own understanding
and to improve the rating on the same time?? I guess your answer will help
many others outside there as well! Can you help me? I wish so much I could
leave this problem behind after 15 years of "suffering", now!) Thanks a lot in
advance, have a nice Christmas and best wishes from Germany! PS: How will I
find out if you have answered? Check ChessCafe regularly? Christian Garfield
(Germany)
Answer Your questions are reasonable ones. They remind me of the happy days
I spent reading Immanual Kant. But if I were to do them justice it would mean
giving them much more space than this column is prepared to give.
Furthermore, it might require the intellect of Kant, which needless to say I don t
have.
You re not a beginner or an ordinary amateur, but let s start there, since in one
interpretation of what you ve written you ask me to respond from that
perspective. It makes sense to learn the principles and fundamentals before
concentrating on particular openings. In the beginning of chess study it s natural
to work with open game ideas. They stress things one should know (you know,
some finite number of the thing-in-itself), and they re often easier to grasp. As a
counter, closed games tend to be a little bit more complex, and they assume that
you already know the principles of the open game when those principles work
and when they don t. I suspect you know all that already, but let s continue.
Once a beginner has assimilated a firm foundation in basics and open game
play, it s perfectly acceptable to specialize, branching out into radically different
systems and lines. In fact, it makes the game more attractive and allows for
personal style.
As far as improving from a particular amateur level, we can t do better than
playing strong opposition, fairly often, and then submitting those games to
thorough analysis. That analysis, which is really like a diagnosis, will direct our
next steps, whether it comes from us or other chess doctors. It may suggest
openings completely alien to those typically studied by amateurs. It might
recommend that we invest ourselves in endgame and strategic work, which most
casual players find repellent. But if a strong analyst or teacher told us to give up
chess, would we do it? I surmise we wouldn t. So we don t have to take their
reasonable advice either. We can do anything we like, as long as we continue to
love what we re doing.
But you re not a typical amateur. You re already a fairly proficient combatant.
You, much more than ordinary players, must submit your games to
comprehensive analysis. General baloney from me or anyone like me just won t
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (5 of 7) [1/25/2005 10:29:53 AM]
The Q & A Way
cut it. If you re serious, and it sounds as if there s a chance you might be, it s
time to get down to business. You re not entitled to play merely for the love of
the game. You re already too good. And yes, I m kidding somewhat. Happy
New Year, and thanks for bringing me back to my Cliff Notes on Kant.
Question I am something of a chess historian. There are many facts we do not
know or may never know about chess history such as how far back the game
goes in history (the invention of it and the rules; also, where it comes from; I
think China; I disagree with India). Additionally, the rules are interesting. I
believe chess may have been played many thousands of years ago, in some
version, and survived without a written record. Early man carried the game with
him as a form of religious worship. It was a way to become one with their
environment and to receive spiritual sustenance. I also love the lore of the great
players and the grandmasters. (I do not believe women had anything to do with
it, as you said in one of your past columns). Everything about them fascinates
me, as it does most people. You cannot get much on their private or secret lives
or what has enabled them to become so developed at chess. Why don t we have
chess games per se recorded prior to the Renaissance? I realize the openings
were different. But they left none of that for us to read. You have been writing
about chess and teaching it and maybe you have information you could provide
on this. I would appreciate any insights you have on the above problems. Wes
Gilbert (USA)
Answer I m not sure what problems you re referring to. You mean the ones way
above, like in the sky? I was hoping we could come back down to the planet s
surface. You want to know about grandmasters and chess history? Here s the
little I ve been able to glean, possibly from the same sources you ve been
exposed to. (I ll leave out the women.)
For centuries grandmasters have mystified the public with their play and strange
garb (though not always in that order). These geniuses have preserved a
modicum of privacy by remaining aloof and keeping unlisted phone numbers.
But it wasn t always so, at least not in primeval times. Pawns, rooks, knights,
phone numbers those were practically unknown then.
In those days, before checkmate and resignation became popular, the pieces
didn t have names and they weren t even pieces. Furthermore, I think there were
only three ways to lose a game: being called for touch move, a defective sundial,
or the sudden intervention of an annoying kibitzer.
According to what I was told, and as you imply, the initial school of good
players came on the scene a long time ago. But certain experts say that they
really appeared ten years before that. Nonetheless, grandmasters hadn t been
invented yet, and we can say for sure that no chess games were recorded prior to
10,000 years ago (I m certain of it). That s because the average player didn t
wear a shirt and therefore had no place to put pens.
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (6 of 7) [1/25/2005 10:29:53 AM]
The Q & A Way
Copyright 2005 Bruce Pandolfini. All Rights Reserved.
Yes, I have a question for Bruce!
[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study][Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (7 of 7) [1/25/2005 10:29:53 AM]
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
bruce61bruce65bruce62bruce60bruce63bruce64bruce68bruce66bruce69więcej podobnych podstron