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!
Tactics Is A Good Strategy
Question Hello Bruce! I started playing chess seriously about 3 or 4 months
The Q & A
ago. I learned the rules of the game when I was 8 (I'm 15 years old now), but I
never gave the game the attention it needed, until some months ago when I
became fascinated with the game. But the problem I have is that I don't see my
Way
game improving at all. I mean, I read some books over the last months, but apart
Bruce Pandolfini
from learning the basics of openings and some ending patterns, I couldn't find
any book or any method to help me improving my tactics and strategy, which, I
think, are my biggest problems, because sometimes I even get some advantage
after the openings and I just throw it all away in the middlegame. I never seem
to find any kinds of combinations, or just good moves at some parts of the
game, and so I'm stuck at 1100-1200 rating. So I would like to know if you
could give me some tips on how to improve my strategic/tactical vision or any
other way to improve my game. Thanks a lot. Gutenberg Neto (Brazil)
Answer Tactics and strategy are very different. Most developing students find it
easier to acquire tactical knowledge. You can work your way through book and
software collections of tactical examples, and there are hundreds of such
treatises available. Far less has been produced on planning and position play.
Ironically, assimilating good strategic thinking usually takes longer, and
requires going through years of experience and solid mental investment.
To improve your tactical grasp, pick up a good puzzle book of practical
examples and work your way through it as efficiently as you can. When you
finish that, get another book and do the same thing. When you finish that, get
still another book and proceed through that third book (and so on). Just keep
trying to solve situational puzzles always without moving the pieces. I d be
terribly surprised if your tactical awareness didn t sharpen. There are other
things you can do as well, but there s no need to be exhaustive or original.
Repeatedly solving tactical problems has helped chessplayers around the world.
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (1 of 6) [12/21/2004 11:36:43 AM]
The Q & A Way
It should help you too.
To acquire a better understanding of strategy, and significantly improve your
overall chess skills, I suggest you turn to Botvinnik. Buy, borrow, or take out of
the library any of his annotated game collections (or find a character from
Bradbury s Fahrenheit 451 who knows Botvinnik by heart). A player of your
apparent strength (1100-1200) should be able to learn a great deal about
strategic thinking if you follow his analysis with effort and care. After you finish
with Botvinnik, you might then move on to Petrosian or Karpov. What they
have to say about middlegame reasoning and judgment can be similarly helpful.
Petrosian s Legacy, for instance, is an excellent book, with wonderful insights
that virtually all players can appreciate. My Best Games by Karpov is also worth
spending time with, as is How Karpov Wins by Edmar Mednis. And if you want
something that treats planning in particular, give Chess Middlegame Thinking
by Peter Romanovsky a try. It s also a glorious book.
But if you truly want to get better, why don t you play a couple of thousand
games against really good players. That odyssey should improve all aspects of
your game in ways I couldn t even begin to describe, which is just one of the
reasons I m ending this answer right here.
Question Hi, I'm from Atlanta, Georgia and I'm rated about 1722. Basically, I
have two questions. I have accumulated several opening books to complete my
repertoire as White and Black. For White, I have a good book on playing d4, by
Richard Palliser. As Black against e4, I play the Sicilian Sveshnikov and have
the book The Complete Sveshnikov by Yakovich. Against an anti-Sicilian, I have
the book Beating The Anti-Sicilians by Gallagher. Against d4, I play Nf6, and
will play either the Nimzo or Benoni and I have great books on those openings.
Now, I have my opening repertoire setup with White and Black. Is this a good
approach? I know what I want to play. Now, I'm hoping that in time, I'll really
do well in future tourneys. Also, is it a good idea to play in the open sections of
tourneys, with the intent to gain experience playing those who are 300+ rating
points higher than me? Dominick DiMantova (USA)
Answer It seems as if you re working with some first-rate texts. Judicious use
of those books should place you in good stead to play at your current level and
beyond. But I wouldn t stop there. I d search out reinforcements for the
particular lines you ve chosen. You should be looking at current journals and
tapping software, such as Chessbase. The Internet could also prove
accommodating for example, Chessgames.com. You might additionally find it
worthwhile to work with a study partner. He or she could test the lines you re
interested in against you (as well as analyze with you), and you could
correspondingly assist your study partner. By setting up a joint schedule, you
indicate your willingness to take the entire proceeding more seriously. You re
far less likely to talk yourself out of a session if there s someone else with whom
to share the experience and the responsibility.
It s not imprudent to play in open sections, potentially facing players rated 300
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (2 of 6) [12/21/2004 11:36:43 AM]
The Q & A Way
points or so higher than you. I wouldn t necessarily suggest that tack for players
much weaker than you (around 1000), but an established 1722 player is a decent
chess warrior, generally inclined to learn from instructive losses and capable of
occasionally beating expert players.
One last suggestion: if you can, I recommend you try to add the element of
chess software to your regimen, if you haven t already done so. Surely, it s not
indispensable, but I feel there s much to be gained by utilizing the new
technology, before it utilizes you.
Question I've heard that studying the games of masters can help one improve
his or her play. And I've have recently heard that a certain grandmaster stated
that a player should "annotate his own games" in order to improve. Therefore, I
ask, "In your opinion, which is a better way for a player to improve?"-- studying
the games of the masters or their own games (maybe they are equally as
beneficial). Also, exactly how should one "annotate" his or her own games --
please explain the best way to do this to me in order to get the most out of it.
Erik Dawkins (USA)
Answer Perusing the games of grandmasters and masters might very well
improve one s play. Maybe. If you re a total newcomer, you might gain much
more from working with basic texts than with books of esoteric moves and
complex analyses well beyond your experience and present level of
understanding. If you labor too often over unreadable material you might
become so discouraged that you wind up abandoning ship. I m also willing to
bet that the grandmaster you re paraphrasing was referring to players of A
strength (the first class of good player) or better. The suggestion might help
players of lesser stature, but it wouldn t be as effective or meaningful.
Actually, the best games for you to study are those not between grandmasters,
not between masters, and not between players of your own strength. By far the
best games to study, if you can get your hands on them, would be games
between players of your own strength and very strong players. The players of
your strength would likely make the errors typical of your class, and the very
strong players would undoubtedly take advantage of those mistakes. That s
powerful instruction. You probably wouldn t learn as much if only sophisticated
errors were made, which you didn t comprehend even if they were taken
advantage of, or if downright blunders were played that went unseen and
unexploited.
Without knowing much about you, I m going to suggest that you place greater
emphasis on the analysis of your own games, preferably with the aid of a strong
and sympathetic player. But I don t think you have to annotate your games so
much as simply figure out what went wrong and what you could have done
better. If possible, you might consider taking some instruction aimed at
analyzing your games. You can improve with greater speed if you understand
what you ve been doing wrong and you re shown how to do it right on a
regular basis. You can use software, friends, and your mind to get the job done,
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (3 of 6) [12/21/2004 11:36:43 AM]
The Q & A Way
but having a knowledgeable and considerate advisor in your corner couldn t
hurt.
It can be desirable to learn how to write down your thoughts on a chess game.
But even more to the point is learning how to analyze chess positions in the first
place, whether you write down your ideas or not. If you want some sense of
what the analytic process is like, and thereby better your calculations and
evaluations, you might want to check out several of the works of Alexander
Kotov, including his Think Like a Grandmaster and Play Like a Grandmaster.
Both books have many practical ideas on the art of analysis, and they re both
quite entertaining. So was Kotov, but that may not be as relevant as his admirers
thought.
Question Hi Bruce! I hope this question reaches you. I am a player rated about
1700-1800 strength. I have recently stepped into the Class A bracket. However,
as an ambitious player, I desire for a higher rating. I want to seriously work on
my game, especially the opening. I have many books about the opening, written
by players such as GMs Eduard Gufeld, Lev Psakhis and Joe Gallagher. My
problem is that when I flip a page of the opening book, all I see are lines and
variations, which make me feel lazy to study. It is very much time-consuming to
go through all the variations, and sub-variations, often resetting the position to
the main line. Aside from being time-consuming, it would require a great deal of
mental energy, because you will have to analyze each move. I do understand the
lines presented, but only after a few minutes of study. Well, I would be willing
to spend that much time and energy if only I could memorize (I believe
mastering the opening still involves the element of memorization aside from
understanding) them, but often times I tend to forget. Yes, I do memorize a few,
but I rarely apply them, because my opponents would tend to deviate from the
lines I study, and then I find myself out of the book and all alone. This leads me
to two questions which, I hope, you could answer: Can you suggest me a proper
way to study an opening book full of variations and contains less verbal
explanation (e.g. Informator style)? and What should I do if my opponent plays
a move not found in the opening book? Thanks. Michael Lucagbo
(Philippines)
Answer The opening books you have are fine. I do understand your dilemma,
however. It can be really enervating to set up again and again, as you work your
way through variations upon variations. I think you can try either of two things.
If you re determined to go through every single line (which certainly has the
virtue of being thorough, and, in the end, may even be satisfying), you can do so
far more productively by using a software analytic tool, such as Chessbase. You
will be faster, find it much less taxing, and accomplish a vast amount more. You
may discover all sorts of new relations. And whatever you enter can be saved, so
that you have full access to your work in the future, without having to go
through the same drudgery a second time. Chess is a visual game, and a visceral
one. You ll derive much more from your pains if you see the patterns and
connections, and if you eventually begin to feel the lines as vector forces.
Working on a screen may be two dimensional, but it translates into multi-
dimensional reality (the mind is a fantastic thing).
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (4 of 6) [12/21/2004 11:36:43 AM]
The Q & A Way
That s one way to go: inputting the variations with the aid of chess software.
But if the above doesn t appeal to you, you might choose a different course
altogether. You could concentrate on the main lines, and skip over the
explanatory notes, only stopping when it s essential, or when you feel so moved.
You can learn the various side lines not by studying them but by playing
them against other people and seeing what they do. Over the course of time, you
won t get beat up so often and you ll start to absorb key ideas. Things will just
begin to fall into place as you keep seeing the same situations. If you want to
expedite the process, you can again seek the aid of computers. The better
programs will respond with book moves and you can pick up most of the things
offered by the book, without having to toil as much. You can lose and learn with
tireless pleasure. To be sure, you re not going to be put off by losing to a
machine, are you? Finally, what should you do if your opponent varies from the
book? Why not try thinking for yourself? I m told that it can actually help, and
it s supposed to be the real fun of it, as perverted as the notion sounds. I suspect
you re even very good at it.
Question I am interested in the names of openings, and have three questions: 1)
Which is the origin of the following names: Halloween Gambit, Elephant
Gambit and English Defence? 2) Is it true that Ruy Lopez de Sigura did not trust
the opening which uses his name? 3) Is it true that ECO system has the same
mistakes that the former Informator classification had? Thank you in advance.
Viktor Freund (Germany)
Answer You re asking the wrong person, but that s never stopped me before. I
think the Halloween Gambit arises from the Four Knights Game. It is announced
by 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nxe5, which even now sends shivers
down my spine. But what s in a name? The Elephant Gambit, I believe, is a
variation stemming from the Queen s Pawn Counter Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
d5). I don t know who s responsible, or if it should be judged a crime, but after
3. exd5, the zoo-like response 3. & Bd6 seems to signify the Elephant Gambit.
And the English Opening (1. c4) goes back to fact that it was played and
analyzed by Howard Staunton in the 1840s, though it was first put into print by
Lucena in 1497. I can t say if Ruy Lopez trusted the opening named after him,
but I don t think his play was good enough to trust him, or anything he played,
for that matter. Just make sure the sun is shining in your opponent s eyes. As far
as ECO mistakes being incorporated from the old Yugoslav Informator system,
I m not sure what mistakes you re referring to. Perhaps some of the
classification is slightly inexact or maybe inelegant, but for the most part, the
work of Braslav Rabar and his cronies has accounted for much of the
improvement in the theory and practice of chess openings. I say we give the man
a break.
Question I don´t understand why there are separate sections for men and
women in chess tournaments. Do you think that men are superior? (I don't!)
Thank you. Marco Antonio (Brazil)
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (5 of 6) [12/21/2004 11:36:43 AM]
The Q & A Way
Answer Most serious chessplayers, male and female, believe people shouldn t
be judged by that kind of distinction, plain and simple. The main thing that
should concern us is how well someone plays, regardless of their gender.
Certainly, there are more men than women inhabiting top ranks, but I don t feel
it has to be that way. Societal influences play a huge role, but that s never
stopped Judith Polgar from kicking a great deal of male butt (just an observation
from another perspective).
Copyright 2004 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 (6 of 6) [12/21/2004 11:36:43 AM]
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
bruce67bruce61bruce65bruce62bruce60bruce63bruce64bruce68bruce69więcej podobnych podstron