Purchases from our
From the Archives...
chess shop help keep
ChessCafe.com freely
Since it came online in 1996, ChessCafe.com has presented thousands of
accessible:
articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment of its worldwide
readership. This high quality material remains available in the ChessCafe.
com Archives. However, we decided that the occasional selection from the
archives posted publicly online might be a welcomed addition to the regular
fare.
Watch for an item to be posted online periodically throughout each month.
We will update the ChessCafe.com home page whenever there has been a
"new" item posted here. We hope you enjoy From the Archives...
From the
Archives
The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini 1000 Checkmate Combinations
by Victor Khenkin
Hosted by
Are You A Number Or A Letter?
Mark Donlan
Question I am an amateur player, something like an ELO 1800. I am thirty-
[Find us on Facebook.] four-years-old and trying to improve my chess. My program is to play against
the computer, learn from endgame books, solve problems, and read and
Translate this page analyze master games. I also like Nimzowitsch's My System. As a father and
engineer, I have only an hour or so a day to study chess. From your
experience, how many hours per week should I spend on my chess to reach
2000? Moreover, can I do this in two or three years, or will it take more like
four years? Also, which will be the optimal time distribution in openings,
tactics, strategies, endings, playing, and analysis? Marc Segovia (Uruguay)
Play Like A Girl!
Answer I would have to know more about you to give a fitting answer. In
by Jennifer Shahade
order to respond to your needs, I would want to know, for example, how
many years you've been playing, how long you've been at 1800, what your
regimen was before you established your current program, which chess books
you've read, which chess periodicals and journals you regularly see, the types
of chess software you may own, how often you play, both in tournaments and
casually, if you've received any chess instruction, especially recently, and if
you're comfortable with analyzing in your head. Your answers here would not
fill out the picture completely, but at least they would enable me to reply more
sensibly and appropriately.
This is where you might want to seek out the aid of a nearby professional,
someone to analyze and evaluate your play. In a couple of sessions, an
Play through and download
experienced analyst should be able to assess your strengths and weaknesses
ChessBase Magazine #141
the games from
and make some recommendations. If you can find such a mentor, get him or
by Rainer Knaak
ChessCafe.com in the
her to lay out a course of study for you that pertinently addresses your specific
ChessBase Game Viewer.
problems and requirements. It is this person, not a distant responder, who
should help you decide what to study and how to apportion your time. If the
initial meetings turn out well, you might then agree to see this local teacher on
a fairly steady basis, probably once a week, to monitor your progress and
continue steering you along the right path. Even if you don't wind up seeing
this advisor that often, you should still arrange some kind of follow-up to
judge how well things are going. For sure, it will be helpful to have ongoing
counsel, heading toward your ultimate goal of 2000 ELO in approximate
ability.
If everything goes your way, you have a decent chance to reach the expert
level, perhaps in the next two or three years. It's not guaranteed, but you are
young enough, and as an engineer, you're probably used to implementing
ideas and following a rigorous curriculum. But since what I know about you
is still superficial, I wouldn't urge you to commit fully to a goal that might
prove beyond your reach (not that it is). My suggestion therefore is to proceed
a little less ambitiously at first. Instead of setting your sights directly on 2000,
aim for intermediate goals that can be built on successively. Inevitably, these
steady increments should lead to 2000 anyway.
Start, for instance, by shooting for a rating of 1825. After you knock this off,
target a slightly higher goal of 1850. Once you get to 1850 (let's be confident
that you will, though expect to fall back a bit now and then), set the bar still
higher, say to 1875, and go for this mark. Proceeding in this manner, pursuing
gradual, but definite gains, is an entirely realistic approach for the amateur
who wishes to improve. And even if you run into a roadblock, this method
should still keep you involved as you search for a way to get beyond the
impasse.
With regard to what you're doing  learning from endgame books, solving
problems (I trust you mean tactical, real-game positions, not composed
problems, which tend to have less everyday application), analyzing master
games, and reading Nimzowitsch's My System  all these are excellent
activities from which to acquire chess knowledge. Percentage-wise, I don't
think it matters so much. Using your hour a day to do any of the above seems
productive to me. I do think, however, that you'll need to find additional time,
beyond the period set aside for study, to play chess, at least several hours per
week. Playing against the computer, by the way, is fine, but playing online
may be even better (most players prefer exploiting human foibles over
computer glitches). Finally, you might want to play some face-to-face games,
too, where you can vividly see those who are about to die, and they can salute
you in person.
Question I have been frozen around B strength for years, though I don't have
a rating. I am going to be forty-four-years-old and have no more than ten
hours a week for chess. This includes play. I also like checkers, but can't find
opponents. I would love to get close to 1800 in chess, but I don't seem to go
anywhere. How can I get to the high levels? How does this happen, how do
some people get there, and how come there are many obstacles? Also, how
come I sometimes play below my class? Philip Cici (USA)
Answer Let's not comment on your class until you've joined the U. S. Chess
Federation and played in some rated tournaments, because this is the only way
anyone can say with accuracy how good you really are. Otherwise, all this
talk about ratings makes no sense. I'm not suggesting that you're not a B
player, or even better, but thinking of yourself as a B player doesn't mean that
you play like one in legitimate competition. There are simply too many
intangibles that don't become concrete before the chessboard cements them.
To determine your true strength, your play must be tested for real, in officially
rated games. This brings me to your questions, which I will now try to
answer, also for real, as I understand them.
A potential problem for any student of the game is that it's natural to become
stranded on performance plateaus. In order to succeed at any discipline, we
have to be prepared for these periods of virtual stasis, where no matter how
hard we work, we can't seem to make headway. In fact, it's not uncommon
during these times to play worse for awhile, possibly a phenomenon you may
have experienced. This happens especially when trying to effect new ideas
and techniques. We may become so enmeshed in abstractions that obvious
things are overlooked, and our play suffers. How we deal with these apparent
setbacks and periods of getting nowhere is cardinal to whether or not we get
somewhere in the end.
It's easy to surrender to your frustrations when progress seems to be at a
standstill. But if you want to break out of your apparent slump, not that you're
in one, you must somehow stay with the program, whether by hard work,
dedication, or doggedness. And when you finally break out, it may seem as if
it happens "just like that." But it won't be "just like that" at all, regardless how
suddenly and surprisingly the gain in strength manifests itself. It's likely that
you've been getting stronger all along, even if plainly by accruing experience,
but the improvement might not show itself until all the parts are in place.
In order to understand this better, it helps to think in terms of learning quanta.
Crudely speaking, and let me say, this is probably not how it really is, but
rather a convenient way to describe it, the 1600 level is at one quantum rung
and the 1800 level is at another. Yes, there could be other levels in between.
Let's say, to reach the next level, whatever it is, you have to learn 1000 new
concepts. (This is an arbitrary number, chosen to serve as an illustration, and
the concepts referred to are not necessarily concepts at all. Moreover, playing
at a certain level is not solely dependent on what you know, but also on how
you utilize knowledge, while all kinds of impalpable factors also impact on
the outcome.) At some point along the way you may have learned 500 new
conceptions. This will put you halfway there, but you still won't necessarily
perform that much better in actual play. If you can overcome your
disappointment, and keep plugging away, you might in time reach a stage
where you've absorbed 750 new pointers. Even here you might not display
significant advancement, but you must be getting closer to making a jump.
You've been installing data, and setting up logical relations, yet some
necessary links remain absent. Eventually you may reach a point where
you've learned 999 new things, but you're still not there. Then it happens. You
learn one more datum, and 1000 facts have now been assimilated. Suddenly,
you're playing at a more proficient level, and you can't account for it. The
truth is, you've been advancing all along, but none of these gains could
disclose themselves until everything was integrated into position. This
analogy, regardless of its validity, seems to resemble the way people improve
at chess.
My advice to you? Don't worry so much about how well you play, and don't
lose heart over your failures. When you lose, try to understand why you've
lost and what you could have done to avert defeat. It doesn't matter if you're a
C player, a B player, someone who likes the game of checkers but can't find
opponents, or whatever, as long as the game of chess remains challenging and
diverting. Play mainly for the pleasure of it, as often as you can, and
improvement is bound to come. And if it doesn't, you have an out. You can
blame me.
Question I'm a class A player who typically spends his chess time: twenty
percent opening, forty percent middlegame (strategy/tactics), ten percent
ending, thirty percent serious games. I've found that my opponents rarely are
"booked up" and that my games rarely go into even endgames. Hence I prefer
to emphasize tactics and middlegame planning. Can you recommend how non-
master players might best allocate their time? J.F.B. Taylor (USA)
Answer You play at the A level, and so you already are quite competent. I
consider the A class to be the first category of good player, in that most A
players have the ability to win won games. Those who play below the 1800
mark tend to be less fully armed, especially in the area of technique. This
doesn't mean, of course, that all A players win when ahead, nor that all B
players lose when behind. But it does imply that the typical A player is
acquainted with most essential winning procedures and therefore can convert
material advantages, even small ones. On the other hand, since you are a
strong player, you must also realize that improving your strength at this point
becomes harder. You might have to work at it, and since your time is
probably limited, the rational plan is to avoid wasted effort.
Studying tactics is sensible, and you should solve tactical problems
constantly, always doing them in your head. Since you feel your opponents
are not particularly booked up, it also seems plausible to study the opening,
because knowledge here might enable you to score quickly. But based on
what you've said, I question the value of putting excessive labor into
middlegame planning, as important as this aspect of the game is. If I read you
right, it could be that many of your games are being decided earlier, much
before the middle of the game, which implies that greater capital might be
made by emphasizing opening preparation. (If you're enjoying strategic study,
however, and feel it's been really helpful, by all means continue with what
you're doing.)
I do think that you might gain significantly by exploring the endgame,
especially trying to develop your technique for winning won games. But it's
not so obvious where to find an abundance of this material, inasmuch as
books generally don't dwell on practical positions with distinct material
dominance. There's room for creativity here. You could, for instance, look to
positions where players have already resigned. Chess books are full of them.
A huge share of these lost positions reflect situations of decisive material
imbalance. I would take the more serviceable positions your quest produces
and play them out against a computer. You could do the same thing with a
partner, but it's hard to find one willing to defend irreparable games.
Artificially intelligent beings don't seem to mind.
Anyhow, keep a record of your results. See how well you do when up by a
pawn or two, or if ahead by a piece, rook, or queen. Determine how you fare
with different combinations of pieces, such as rook for minor piece, several
minor pieces for two rooks, or whichever entertaining assortments arise. See
how long it takes to mate or clean out the opponent's forces. This should
definitely increase your technique. It will also provide information on which
types of positions give you the most trouble, and therefore need special
attention.
Generally, I don't like laying out formulaic programs, where students follow
the same prescriptions regardless who they are and what their needs may be.
Some teachers prefer teaching this way, but it doesn't take into account
tangible differences in the way people learn. They learn in a multitude of
different ways, so a multitude of different teaching philosophies and
corresponding curricula may do.
As far as the proportion of time you devote to this or that, I don't think it has
to be so arithmetical. The percentages should always add up to 100 no matter
their distribution. Don't worry if you wind up exceeding your planned
allotment in a particular area, nor should you fret about the best way for non-
masters to allocate their time. Examine or do whatever intrigues you at the
moment, and go with it. The enthusiasm generated by this should feed off
itself. I hope, for your sake, it already has.
Question I have only a certain number of hours a week to study chess.
Between five to ten hours. How can I compete with people who study ten
hours everyday? Isn't it hopeless? James McNamee (Ireland)
Answer I understand your concern about the shortage of time, and the fact
that you may have no more than an hour a day to study chess. It's hard to
compete with people who study six, eight, or ten hours a day, when one has
only six, eight, or ten hours for the entire week. In fact, it's virtually
impossible to compete with these full-time students at all, not that there's so
many of them.
Let's consider a few things. Do you really think that full-time students study
all day long at maximum intensity? Isn't it likely that the law of marginal
returns will go into effect, and as time passes, less will be obtained from
comparable labor? Don't you think that, with prolonged, unbroken study,
some of the effort might be purposeless, wasteful, or even counterproductive?
You don't have to answer these questions, but they suggest how to
compensate for having less study time than others. You can obtain more from
your efforts, and counteract time discrepancies and restraints, by working at
full capacity for a certain critical period (however long this should be). The
point is that some kinds of learning are not necessarily functions of time.
Instead they are more dependent on intensity of focus. That is, unless a
specific threshhold of concentration is reached, in just the right way, the
secrets of the given level might not be revealed, regardless how long one sits
over the chessboard. So the full-time student may have opportunities to learn
more, but the student who works harder for shorter stretches may, in some
cases, have chances to learn better (only a theory). But I can see your point,
which could explain my sudden sense of despair.
Question I have two questions. How can I use a computer to help my
openings? The other question is, what do you think about robots who play
chess? Jeffrey Shaffer (USA)
Answer I've known a few automatons who play chess, but no robots, so I
haven't cogitated about your second question very much. But regarding your
first question, I can offer you some advice. Start by getting a robot. If you
have no luck finding one, you can resort to an ordinary digital.
Let's say you have luck. Command the robot to play against you in a way that
helps develop your opening repertoire. Specifically, play short games against
it, stopping at move fifteen or so each game. See how the robot evaluates the
final position. More than likely, it will assess your position with a negative
number, which means you will be standing worse. Follow the game
backward, until you arrive at a point where the robot thinks you were doing
well, in that it affixes a positive number to your position. Then try to play
from there, this time essaying a move different from the one that gave you a
minus sign. Keep repeating this process, playing and retracting, in each case
going back to when you had a positive number, until you achieve move
fifteen with at least an equal position or better. Count how many times you
must begin again until you finally reach move fifteen with at least an equal
position. This number, averaged out to include all your attempts, is your "take-
back index." Optimally, you'll want to get your takeback index down as low
as possible. The robot may have other plans, but no matter, you'll surely learn
something about the contested opening, which brings us back to reality.
Question I have a question about burn out. How do you recover from it? I had
a period where I lost interest in the game and basically quit playing. Now I'm
thinking about playing again. Where should I start first? I know that I studied
too long and played very little. What should I do? Jesse Pittman (USA)
Answer It sounds as if you did the right thing in taking a needed break. Now
that you might start playing again, you should probably take it slowly at first,
beginning with a few casual games against pressure-free opposition, to get
your feet wet. If this proves rewarding, you can continue at this level or pick it
up a bit with slightly more challenging opponents, if you want to test the
waters further.
But don't feel as if you must play superior opposition supposedly because this
is the way to improve. Some devotees blithely recommend "playing up,"
claiming this is the only way to get stronger, as if to become a better player is
the sole reason for playing chess. Becoming as good as you can at your
chosen pastime is certainly important, but whatever happened to having fun
and being mentally stimulated? And playing up is hardly the only way to get
stronger. Nor does resigning game after game in itself improve one's play, not
unless one has an iron stomach and can find the will power to learn from
losing. (I'm not suggesting that you experienced this problem, but it's a fairly
typical one, affecting most of us.)
We're supposed to learn from our defeats, and, ideally, we should try. But
being repeatedly bludgeoned into submission is likely to leave even the tough-
minded insensate. We all need some winning once in awhile. I push some of
my students to the extreme (which makes me wonder about myself), driving
them to play the most formidable opponents available. But most players
couldn't cope with such a procrustean program. The bulk of humanity requires
at least an occasional win or two. So to accommodate this need, I usually
prefer that most students practice against opposition of mixed abilities, where
the real test is adjusting to the constant changes in the playing strength of
one's adversaries.
My advice, therefore, is to find the right combination of pleasure and
challenge. Try to develop a suitable group of playing partners, who afford
chances to contest reasonably close games, where decisions can go either
way. You should be winning between forty-five to fifty-five percent of the
decisive games, and if you are losing slightly more than you win, it should be
because of little things that seem learnable. As time goes by, and you begin to
win a much higher ratio of the games, you can then look to increase the
caliber of the opposition so that winning once again requires intelligent effort.
You didn't ask about tournaments, so I'm not sure if they factored in your
decision to pull away. It could be that you should refrain from playing in them
until you decide this is truly what you want to do. They needn't be repellent.
But if you enter a few events, and wind up having some bad results, there's
nothing wrong with taking another break, at least from tournaments, until
you've regained your resolve. After all, unless you are trying to be a serious
competitor, why do you need to assume a serious competitor's grind? By the
way, top chessplayers take breaks, too.
Speaking to the problem of your studies, I would suggest not becoming
involved in long projects, where the rewards are far off. These tend to sap
resolution, with the result being that nothing gets completed. It's true that a
journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, but so does one of a
single mile, and most of us can traverse this with proper pacing and
encouragement. Accordingly, prefer books with 200 problems instead of 300,
100 instead of 200, and fifty instead of 100. Some of the creators of those
denser volumes that offer lots of examples (though not all, such as Lazslo
Polgar with his wonderful tome "Chess"), seem to be more concerned with
giving you your "money's worth." Often they appear oblivious to the
discouragement a student naturally encounters in feeling overwhelmed. The
truth is a few good problems may impel greater momentum than many diffuse
or unrelated ones. When it comes to study, sometimes less is more. Finally,
when unsure which level to work at, start with the middle, and see what
happens. If your effort succeeds, fine. If it proves to be off the mark, you're in
position to step back or forward, whichever seems appropriate. Medium is the
message.
Question I have been teaching chess to the youth of NYC for a few years
now, and a problem that has never been easy for me is how to prepare a
student for a "tournament slump." It is often the case that a student is truly
growing as a player, but may encounter a few tournament losses in a row, and
they sink into a significant despondency, sometimes wanting to quit chess
altogether. While I let them know that losses may be seen as healthy learning
experiences, I know that even nowadays, when I fall into a slump, most all the
consoling in the world doesn't help my wanting to stay in bed for a week.
Maybe it's just a matter of maturity. Anyway, I'd greatly appreciate a
response. Jonathan Max (USA)
Answer Whenever a venture seems to be faltering, whether it's competitive,
instructional, or both, something should be changed, even if only in
appearance. The idea is to give the entire enterprise a fresh face, so the
student can begin again with renewed vigor. If a student falls into a slump,
taking a respite, or doing something a little differently for awhile is logical.
Perhaps assigning a related project might keep the student motivated until the
time is right to re-enter tournaments. You appear to be a sensitive educator,
who can probably come up with your own ideas on the subject, so I sense
your students are in good hands.
Nonetheless, a few words about coping with losing might be apropos. For
everyone, though for children especially, some losses can be extremely
painful. Losing at chess in particular has the power to leave us feeling
outwitted and even humiliated. It may seem that there is virtually nothing
sufficiently soothing to be said to a young boy or girl after a tough loss, which
is one reason it's wise to prepare them for defeat and potential slumps ahead
of time.
Your insight about the inefficacy of some types of consolation rings true.
Often I hear parents and teachers saying how well their charges had played
after a disheartening defeat, obviously to placate them, but these assuaging
comments usually seem hollow. Unless the loser did play well, he or she is
likely to see through such artfulness and reject it.
For this reason, the most experienced teachers almost never tell their students
that they've performed admirably when they patently haven't. Concerned
teachers tend to offer nil in immediate aftermath, and when they do say
anything, whether it's palliative remarks associated with a loss or
compliments during a lesson, they aim to be specific, demonstrating with
moves and reasons why the praise is appropriate. In consequence, these
seasoned mentors have much more power to ameliorate at crucial times, when
it really matters.
It seems to me the best thing a teacher can do after a student suffers a painful
defeat is to get in tune with the youngster's feelings. When the timing appears
opportune, the teacher might say something like: "I know how you feel," or
words tantamount to this. Maybe this won't do the trick by itself. The teacher
might still have to follow with a deflecting aside or two, perhaps alluding to
his or her own losing experiences, and how painful they were. If the teacher
can skillfully sneak in a laugh of reflection, maybe the student can join the
teacher in stoic acceptance and humor, with the teacher suddenly becoming
the conduit for the student's own hurt feelings. It wouldn't be surprising if the
laughter soon turned to a cathartic floodgate, with the kid crying his or her
brains out. (It's not wrong to cry, but as you probably know, it's wrong to
think it's wrong.) Once this release takes place, life generally moves on to
getting some food, throwing and catching a ball, or participating in some
other diverting activity. At the Nationals, for instance, it's uncanny how often
kids will wind up playing speed chess or bughouse with the very players who
beat them in the last round.
But you are right to try to cope with these problems before they happen, for
much of the sting associated with losing can be softened in preparation.
Preparing them for the worst doesn't necessarily mean that the teacher should
presuppose a stance of acceptance  that it's okay to lose  for this could dull
the student's competitive edge, triggering the very outcome to be eschewed. A
better approach it seems to me is to show students that they have options,
whether winning or losing, as they have choices in selecting candidate moves
and plans. If winning, they must opt for the most economical way to win. If
losing, they must decide how to set problems for their opponents, which could
possibly save the game at hand. The teacher's real aim should be to encourage
students to be active participants in making their own decisions, for in chess
few things are worse than feeling that you are under your opponent's thumb.
Somehow, rather than being a crestfallen victim in a losing game, a student
should be trained to assume the mindset of a dispassionate observer, who is
trying to optimize chances to rescue a position, as students naturally do during
analysis sessions in classrooms. With the stigma of looming failure thereby
removed, the student can disinterestedly approach the situation looking for the
best moves, as if trying to solve a puzzle, the solution being to stave off
defeat. Students who can be this objective are apt to achieve at least two
things. They will probably become more resourceful, capable of salvaging
many potential losses, and they are likely to become more philosophical,
better equipped to ameliorate their own pain and suffering. Teachers able to
instill such wisdom are not only helping their own students play better chess,
they are also serving the greater aims of humanity by encouraging the use of
reason and compassion in everyday life.
© ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.
This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in December 1999.
[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [ChessCafe Archives]
[ChessCafe Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com]
[Contact ChessCafe.com]
© 2011 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of BrainGamz, Inc.