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!
In General Be Specific
Question It seems odd to me that with all the information that is available to the
The Q & A
chess enthusiast today through books, video, DVD, websites, software and
computers, we are still asking the same questions. How can I play chess well?
How can I improve significantly? A quick look at the USCF website indicates a
Way
rating history of my fellow tournament players that hasn't changed much in 10
Bruce Pandolfini
years! It appears to me that most players improve initially somewhat, and then
plateau at a level that won't improve much, despite their efforts in studying the
game with the vast material available. This may explain why many low rated
players think there must be some 'secrets' that only grandmasters know. All this
brings me to question whether having private lessons from an instructor is one
of these 'secrets' for significant improvement. The other possibility is that chess
is something where most people just 'don't get it'. You either have what it takes,
or you don't. You can only improve on something that is already there. If you
don't agree Bruce (and I figure you won't), then how do you explain the
situation? Joe Hawks (USA)
Answer I think it could be helpful to pin down what you mean by playing chess
well and improving significantly. Some of us, for instance, might conclude
that we re getting nowhere unless we re verging on mastery. Others may be
happy merely with winning an under-1300 tournament. Some of us seek at least
a gain of a couple of rating classes as a sign of improvement. Others may be
content with a surge of a paltry 50 points.
Let s say you define a significant improvement as the latter, a gain of 50 points.
Even then you have to make distinctions. Advancing from 762 to 812 is not the
same thing as going from 2162 to 2212. Were gains achieved in almost no time
or over a period of years? What about the age of the subject and the type of
opposition he or she normally faces? There s a big difference between gaining
those points as a child of eight or as a 25-year-old adult. Acquiring 50 rating
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (1 of 7) [7/27/2004 4:27:03 PM]
The Q & A Way
points in classroom play against unschooled novices is incredibly easier than
doing it in weekend contests at the Marshall Chess Club against veteran
tournament competitors. And let s remember we re all individuals. A suitable
answer should also take into account a student s persona and peculiar needs.
So if your concerns are to be addressed satisfactorily, it makes sense to define
our premises more precisely. Most of us simply are not going to eat an apple in
the same way we d consume an orange.
You make a good point when you suggest that most players eventually tend to
hit a plateau. No matter how innately endowed one might be, obstacles of some
sort are apt to slow down development or bring it to a sudden halt. Knowledge
and experience should begin to play an increasingly pivotal role, and at that
point, a player s mindset and personality help determine whether further
progress is to be made. Suddenly, it s not just about talent, unless of course one
defines talent only by some ultimate success, quite apart from how it s achieved.
It s often possible to get beyond transitory impasses to advance toward higher
levels of performance, and there may be a variety of ways to do it. Some of us
need the aid of teachers and strong players. Others do it on our own. Some of us
do it by purposeful reading and use of software. Some of us make our gains by
playing more challenging opposition as often as we can. Others don t play at all,
at least for awhile, until interest has once again piqued. Then we seem to
improve just like that, without apparently doing anything definite whatsoever.
Who knows why some of us who do virtually nothing manage to get to the same
or better place as those who do practically everything? The point is that there
aren t any formulas to nail down our goals. If there were, we all would achieve
our ends applying them purely by rote.
If chess teaches us anything it s that situations are as different as they are
similar. Each one of us is unique, and not just in trivial ways. Despite our
common humanity, we still function differently enough to require tailored
solutions.
There are no secrets to success. To be sure, having a great teacher or state-of-the-
art tools might help. And some of us just seem to have it while some of us
don t. But why is it that many of those with apparently everything on their side
falter and those who enter the Valley of Death unarmed conquer? How come
some of the most talented bomb out spectacularly and some of the supposedly
least talented seem to fly straight to the top?
I can only ask those questions. I can t answer them. But I can say this. Nothing,
not even a carefully protected grandmaster secret, can replace good health, an
objective frame of mind, an upbeat disposition to adversity tempered by a
degree of equanimity, a reasonably based practicality and philosophic attitude, a
resolutely incorporated tough-mindedness, a holistically integrated approach, a
true passion for the enterprise, and the ability and wherewithal to think for
oneself the latter, more than anything. If you can offer another set of
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (2 of 7) [7/27/2004 4:27:03 PM]
The Q & A Way
generalities to bring about success, it wouldn t surprise me and they might work
just as well.
Question I started playing chess a few months ago and I loved it. I'm 13 so
apparently I took chess up quite old. I made good progress and progressed onto
the 1400 level in only a few weeks by reading books and doing exercises etc. I
thought that I would like to really improve so I asked my dad if we could hire a
chess tutor and he thought it was a great idea. But when I went to find one they
all refused to teach me because my rating was too low. What do I do from here?
Can I utilize the internet to improve to becoming a master? Does playing
through master games (e.g. Garry Kasparov's games) really go to improving my
chess? Nat Clark (United Kingdom)
Answer I too didn t take up chess until I was 13, so I know what you re talking
about. And I must admit, I felt quite old at the time. Forget about now.
Your initial success and decent starting rating are to be applauded. I find it
astonishing, though, that there aren t any local chess teachers who d want to
help a player of your ability and obvious love for the game. It makes me wonder
if the teachers you ve encountered are really teachers.
I have a feeling, nonetheless, that you possess the independence to get by
without any teacher at all. You re obviously very bright, and it s clear you truly
love chess. As a result, you have so many options that it might not be sensible to
recommend any of them over the rest. The important thing is to keep playing
and studying chess, however you do it.
If you had to work with any block of information, why don t you start with your
own games? You could catalogue them, which is best done with software, such
as ChessBase. Then you should subject those games to thorough analysis. Start
by running searches to see which lines seem to achieve greater results, and find
out which top players play the variations of special interest. As a rule, to
develop an opening repertoire, it s not a bad inspiration to adopt a leading
player s lines. They will provide you with a sound and consistent springboard to
launch your opening study. That s because most good players tend to sport a
group of openings and defenses that are in harmony with a definite approach. So
once you ve found a player whose style you seem to admire, it s desirable to let
that player do the preliminary work for you. Over time you can always modify
your play to suit your own needs and tastes.
To help you with the analysis of your play, you should input your openings into
a program such as Fritz and see how it responds. Furthermore, you can use its
appraising function to test out your mental meanderings. You re still able to ask
Fritz questions, as you would be able to with a teacher. It s just that Fritz (or any
program like it) answers you more cogently not in words, but in moves, the
language that matters most on a chessboard. Naturally, using the tandem team of
ChessBase and Fritz, your explorations needn t be restricted merely to the
opening. There s no reason you can t also bolster your middlegame and
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (3 of 7) [7/27/2004 4:27:03 PM]
The Q & A Way
endgame play by virtue of the same search and trial method.
So there you have it. All you need is a computer, the proper software, and a
database of your own games, all propelled by your patent intellect and
enthusiasm for chess. Once you realize you don t require a teacher that you are
totally self-reliant and can indeed be your own best teacher -- you re well on the
way toward winning chess. And who knows? Someday you may have the
opportunity to show those so-called chess teachers what they weren t capable of
seeing in the first place.
Question I've been playing chess for about a year and a half now, since I was
19. My current rating is around 1600 on the internet. My question is about
defenses or established "lines", such as the Sicilian, Caro-Kann etc. I've read
about these in different articles but have been too lazy to delve into extensive
analysis with any of them. I realize that at some point I need to learn the basic
rudiments of these established lines. Is there any book or web-page that gives
overviews of the most common defenses, or is it simply impossible to learn
them all at once? Ian Swanson, USA
Answer You probably shouldn t attempt to study them all at once. It s too easy
to get lost in the chess forest. Instead I recommend you break down your
investigation in some manner, perhaps by pawn structures or other typical
classifications. Certainly a textbook such as MCO can help you do that, though
many of the others are more than adequate to provide a curriculum skeleton
while laying out the indispensable basics. Of course you can also obtain what
you need online, and there are numerous and inviting places to visit. Type in the
opening you d like to consider and see where it leads. A worthy site to explore
is Chessgames.com. It has a huge database and is very easy to use. There are
also other features, including an effective search engine and forums where you
can ask questions about openings and get assistance from very advanced
players. What s more, as I understand it, it s entirely free. Why don t you give it
a try?
Question Hi. I certainly benefit from your column. My question is about a
young student who plays too fast-non-speed games. We are trying to slow him
down to play slower chess and think out his moves. Fast play leads to blunders
and poor games. Can you give us some ideas to make this student play more
slowly and more thoughtfully. Thank you. John J. Henry (Canada)
Answer Teachers and parents try everything here. They make kids sit on their
hands, write their moves down beforehand, internalize certain procedures on
each turn, and follow all sorts of mechanical routines to retard their impetuosity.
Some of that may work, but nothing can beat constant practice at analyzing
properly.
Decelerate things simply: stop them from moving pieces in analysis and training
sessions without telling you their intentions. It might be difficult at first, but if
you re consistent, and always encourage them to explain their thoughts instead
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (4 of 7) [7/27/2004 4:27:03 PM]
The Q & A Way
of demonstrating them, you should naturally slow the kids down in a way that s
bound to produce better play.
When some teachers analyze with students, they may even penalize them for
giving the right answer by playing the actual move. You might try saying
something like: If you touch it, you re wrong, even if you play the right move.
But if you tell me your thinking, even when you don t have the right scheme,
you can still save yourself by changing your mind and finding a better move,
without any penalty. In fact, you ll get extra credit. In others words, initially
reward the procedure more than the right result. You can always balance things
out later, making sure that those who get the correct answers, but who break
form, receive credit as well though not immediately, not until they ve learned
a lesson.
Much of real chess thinking has to do with discovering options and alternatives.
Too often a young player will get a notion and play it without further thought,
especially if it seems strong on the surface. But in essence they re just playing
the very first move that comes into their head. Somehow you must insure that
they learn to mull over other options until they can settle on the one they think is
best.
Let s say they have to respond to a particular threat from their opponent. And
let s further say that they come up with a move that doesn t quite do it or even
flops. If you talk things out with them, and they suggest an inferior move, you
should then ask them if there s another move that meets the criteria of the
situation and also works. If they don t find another credible move, you must
keep prodding them until they do. Once they do, and the move is still
inadequate, you must keep the interaction going until they unearth another
possibility. If they finally determine a better move, ask them to compare the
moves they ve come up with to see which one they like most. If you do this
consistently and often enough, you will be instilling in them a very practicable
technique that should certainly hold back their rashness and predispose them to
use their time better in the search for logical moves and pertinent options.
But these problems are typical and apparently eternal, and they bring to mind
Lasker s insightful cogency: If you see a good move, look for a better one.
You see, they were making the same mistakes even then.
Question I am about a 1500 USCF player, though this is not exact. Sometimes I
go a little over and sometimes a little under, but I m usually around 1500. Is
there a best way for a player like me to prepare for tournaments? I have tried
everything, including studying openings, tactics, endgames and puzzles (which I
like), though is there a correct thing to do first, or in a particular order? I have
read everything magazines, books, the internet, and ChessMaster. I admire the
books of Silman, and how could you not be impressed with Kramnik? But is
there a proper way to get more out of my time? I realized I asked a few
questions, and I know you don t always answer all the questions readers ask,
even throwing their questions back at them. I m curious, though I suspect you
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (5 of 7) [7/27/2004 4:27:03 PM]
The Q & A Way
won t be able to help me, but is there a best way for a player with my resume to
improve at chess? John Mardone (USA)
Answer I don t know. Is there? It might help if I could actually see your resume.
But short of that, and if you re not sure, which seems to be the case, and I know
I m not, which I know to be the case, I suggest you do only those things that
increase your pleasure, no matter the reservations expressed by pundits. There s
a lot to be said for hedonism in chess. Just saying it can make some players
smile.
Question Recently, my twelve-year-old son played in a two-day tournament.
The
tournament included three divisions: Under-1400, Under-1800, and an Open
section. My son chose to play in the Open. His playing strength is around 1400
or so, and a few of the Expert and Master players there suggested that he should
not have played in the Open. While playing "up" is generally regarded as a good
idea, I was told that he should only play up by just one section. In other words,
he should have played in the Under-1800. Is there any general rule of thumb for
making these decisions? He played plenty of hard games, and though he lost
pretty consistently, he also said he learned a lot playing very strong players.
What does Mr. Pandolfini have to say about this? Naomi Singer (USA)
Answer Usually I advice my students to play in their own section, whatever it
is. On occasion, it s perfectly proper to play a section ahead to test the waters,
but two sections ahead is another matter. If he or she wishes to play up so
temerariously, and I deduce that s an improvident plan for the youngster in
question, I ll say so and explain my thinking. But I will also indicate that the
decision is theirs and their parent s (gulp), and that everyone is the captain of his
or her own ship. Since your son made the decision, the prudent thing would be
to review the situation and assess its overall effect. Was it a valuable
experience? Did he learn something important from it? Or did it tinge his chess
with an unsuitable color? Only by discussing this with him and analyzing
everything relevant can you decide if that s the kind of thing he should be doing.
And if you can t evaluate it all conclusively, then maybe it s wise to let him
learn how to seek his own future in chess, and everything else.
Copyright 2004 Bruce Pandolfini. All Rights Reserved.
Yes, I have a question for Bruce!
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (6 of 7) [7/27/2004 4:27:03 PM]
The Q & A Way
[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [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) [7/27/2004 4:27:03 PM]
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
bruce67bruce65bruce62bruce60bruce63bruce64bruce68bruce66bruce69więcej podobnych podstron