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
ChessCafe column...
Yes, I have a question for Bruce!
Restricting Opponents
The Q & A
Question I m a 1700 player (USCF) and I play almost daily on the ICC. When I
began playing chess it was because the game was exciting and I enjoyed playing
and using my brain. I deplore how masters and other strong players look to pad
Way
their ratings by beating up on lower rated players. I usually ask them why they
Bruce Pandolfini
even bother to play me. I now plan to establish strong standards for all future
contests. I m thinking I should always try to play up to avoid getting weaker and
to become a stronger player? What do you think? Samuel Fensterwald (USA)
Answer  Always is a rather restrictive word. Chess players naturally look for
absolutes and things they can really count on. While ratings are numbers, which
are tangible and easier to fathom than amorphous concepts, I don t think that
requiring your opponents to be higher rated is necessarily the most promising
approach. If everybody insisted on playing up, no games would ever be played.
I understand your concerns. If you often  play down, you tend to lose your
edge, and your overall game suffers. You re just not as sharp if you ve been
steadily feeding on unchallenging opposition. But it doesn t necessarily have to
be that way.
It s funny. When chess teachers first examine the games of new students, the
students usually want to show their wins, sometimes quite proudly, instead of
their losses, which they often try to hide. What students don t realize is that how
they win may betray just as much as how they lose. You can play decently and
still lose, or play horribly and still win. Most of us know that winning doesn t
indicate you ve automatically played better than your opponent. It just means
that you were able to exploit the last decisive turning point.
A good player should be prepared for anything, regardless of circumstances. He
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (1 of 7) [12/26/2006 4:16:33 PM]
The Q & A Way
or she should also know how to put away weaker players. But I m not
advocating that you seek out weaker opposition, trying to fatten your rating. (By
the way, it s not that easy to gain enormous rating points when you re adding
only one or two points a game. Lose or draw a single game, and you might be
back to where you were or worse  worse, because your spirit will be sapped.)
I suggest a different playing approach. Generally, look to play stronger
opponents, but don t be afraid to play anyone, even if lower rated. Since initially
you have input concerning who can play you, accept all challengers within those
set parameters. (As a guideline, I encourage you to play opponents either one
level above or below you for now, and see how that works out. You can adjust it
over time once you get a better handle on it.) If you find yourself playing up,
you ll need to work hard to avoid losing. Or if you re suddenly playing down,
you should work hard to win nicely (and to avoid losing or drawing). That s
when you know you can really play chess, if you re set for anything.
I m not suggesting that ratings and winning for the mere sake of winning has no
place in our game. For some of us, that s all it offers. The rest of us want to
succeed as well, but with a broader, more sophisticated idea of what constitutes
success. The wiser among us include playing for fun and mental stimulation
among the relevant criteria. Since I suspect you re one of us, why don t you
suspend your recent adoption of Hammurabi s Chess Code and get back to the
original reasons you first turned to chess. No matter the opposition, certainly try
to do your best, but make sure you re there to enjoy it.
Question I am a 50-year-old 2100 player (2200+ at my peak) and I have just
started playing in tournaments again. Besides being rusty in general, my
opening preparation is very spotty. I have played the Najdorf Sicilian all my life,
while I have bounced around a lot in my QP defenses. I ve got Fritz and
ChessBase. What would be the best approach to playing at my peak again, and
maybe even improving? Should I move away from tactical defenses like the
Najdorf? Some practical advice on recreating an opening repertoire and finding
the best things to study would be greatly appreciated. Kenny Thomas (USA)
Answer I m going to suggest something that may not be part of your plan right
now. I think the questions you ask, though entirely reasonable, can t be
answered so generally for a player of your strength. Even though you need to get
back in shape, you re too strong to benefit from do-this and do-that universal
remedies. You need concrete advice that pertains to who you really are.
I think you should have your play reviewed by a strong player/teacher. Perhaps
he or she should be in the 2400 zone or better, and you should expect that initial
assessment to come after 2-4 sessions. Such an examination should provide
clues to answer questions about opening repertoire and style of play, if not much
more.
A player of your ability might also profit from analyzed matches, which I
suspect you may enjoy considerably. Here s the idea. Try to arrange
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (2 of 7) [12/26/2006 4:16:33 PM]
The Q & A Way
instructional 3-session, 2-game matches (two games over two sessions, and one
session for Fritz/ChessBase work). Your helpful opponents should be
significantly stronger than you (generally, at least 200 points higher rated). If
you can t find them nearby, you can track them over the Internet.
After playing each game, analyze it afterward with your opponent. Some people
will be happy to do this for free, though professionals will naturally want a fee.
But by paying for a service, you ll be able to have more specific needs
addressed, such as requiring that certain openings or defenses are played. Once
you ve completed a game and its postmortem, make sure to input the ideas in
ChessBase and Fritz on your own time, but soon thereafter. Whatever questions
are generated by your software work should then be gone over in a third session
with your short-term mentor.  You suggested this, but Fritz doesn t like that,
and so on. If the interaction with that individual seems salubrious, play another
didactic match. Or just move on to another player/helper, repeating the process.
Think what a thrilling experience it would be to play ten matches like that, all
against powerful opposition, all designed for instructive purposes. It will cost
you something, unfortunately, but at the end of those sessions, you should have
a much greater sense of where you are and what you have yet to do. And, if it
doesn t quite work out, at least you will have played twenty intense games
against strong opposition, while having made a valuable contribution to the lot
of the chess professional  well, ten of them.
Question I have started playing chess again after an absence of many years. I
own a copy of every book you ve published, so I m using them as my surrogate
tutor. The answer to my question probably appears in one of your books, but I
haven t been able to find it. My question concerns the way in which games are
titled. Let s say, for example, that the author of a book presents a game that was
played between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky. At the top of the page, it
would appear as  Fischer vs. Spassky. Does the order in which the names
appear have any special meaning? I m guessing that the white player is listed
first, followed by the black player. Or is the winner listed first, followed by the
loser? Is there a particular convention that s followed, and is it utilized by all
chess writers? Donald Smith (USA)
Answer Thank you for your kind words about my books, which may not contain
the answers you re seeking. I like your questions, though I can t speak for all
chess writers. I m having enough trouble speaking for myself. Whether they
write or merely read the stuff, most chess devotees by convention place the
name of the player who had white first (in any given game). A match is a little
different, since no player has white all the time. For matches, usually the name
of the winner precedes that of the loser, yet this custom is not followed
religiously.
Then there s the question of how to name a match that hasn t yet started. If it s a
match for the world championship, typically the champion s name goes first. If
it s a match between two high rated players, there s some leeway. You can do it
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (3 of 7) [12/26/2006 4:16:33 PM]
The Q & A Way
alphabetically, or by virtue of dominant player, or to express a personal slant on
the match, if you don t mind arguments.
Question I am an eight-year-old boy and my rating is 1500. I have played chess
for three years. I practice for one and a half hours a day. How can I improve my
chess and is it possible to be a world champion with this practice? Thank you for
any help you can offer. Soheil Nadimi (Iran)
Answer You are a remarkable young person. It s obvious that you have the
ability to go very far. You have an exceptional rating for your age, and the fact
that you study chess for 90 minutes every day is wonderful. A player such as
yourself can do practically anything and succeed, since your talent is likely to
carry you no matter what. But that doesn t mean you shouldn t practice doing
the right things and pursuing your game with the proper attitude, which you
already seem to possess.
First of all, always give full effort when at the chessboard, trying your very best
at all times. Play the toughest opposition you can find on a steady basis. Don t
be afraid to lose if you think you can learn something.
Puzzle-wise, solve as many real game tactical problems as you can. To that end,
when analyzing tactics, or any chess situations for that matter, make certain not
to move the pieces, since good players must always improve and sharpen their
ability to see chess variations in their minds.
Another fun task might be to play over the games of the great players. If you
can, try to find 100 games or more of every world champion and every great non-
world champion (Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Keres, Korchnoi, and so
on). If you proceed through these players in historical order, you ll also absorb a
sense for the evolutionary flow of chess ideas, in all phases of the game.
And if you want to keep current of openings, you can play over games from
recent events, using journals or, even better, the Internet. For reinforcement, it s
nice to have ChessBase and Fritz at your side. And don t forget endings. Once
you ve learned an endgame idea you have it for life. The way Capablanca won a
pawn-up ending is usually the way we win it now.
But, as I said, a player like you doesn t need someone else s formula. All you
need is chess itself, though it can t hurt to hang out with the best chess minds
you can find. Is it possible for an 8-year-old, with your talent and willingness to
study, to one day become world champion? Absolutely yes  though it s not
going to be easy. So, you better start right now.
Question I am 28-years-old and very motivated to improve my game! I have
been playing seriously for a year. I just finished The Amateur s Mind and want
to continue my study with the books: How to Reassess Your Chess, How to
Reassess Your Chess Workbook together with The Complete Endgame Course,
all by Jeremy Silman. Next I want to study Understanding Chess Openings
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (4 of 7) [12/26/2006 4:16:33 PM]
The Q & A Way
Middle Game Book I, together with Pawn Structure, Middle Game Book II by
Sam Collins. I would then like to find a teacher or some very advanced books 
unless you have a better idea. Also, I am getting a DGT board for Christmas,
and I think this will help me greatly. Is my study plan good or are there any
better books for me? Your help is much appreciated. Richard Smids (United
Kingdom)
Answer I m not familiar with the work of Mr. Collins, though his books may be
excellent. However, I m very cognizant of what Jeremy Silman has done. He s
simply one of the finest instructional chess writers on the planet (if not the
finest), so you can t go wrong reading his offerings. Go right ahead, enjoying
and profiting from them, along with that magnificent Christmas present,
assuming it did arrive.
Question A friend was saying that  visualizing can t make you a GM.
However, in my mind, visualization is important in chess. I have to differentiate
between visualizing the board and the sort of visualization where you see
yourself winning  a bit like a basketball player visualizes a foul shot. So can
you become a GM without visualization? Or can visualizing make you a GM?
Of course, skill and talent and studying are also important. Joe Caissy
(Australia)
Answer I am not a scientist, and I don t know anything about your friend, but
you tell him (or her)  and I will go out on the limb here  that it is not possible
to become a grandmaster without the ability to visualize positions and moves in
your head. I will risk further embarrassment, adding that the better you can see
ahead, the more likely you ll become a strong player. Your basketball analogy is
another matter. For some players, visualization may not be that important, since
they seem to shoot foul shots as if they can t see ahead at all.
Question of the Month
The best answers will be published in the next column.
Which question would you like to see posed?
Reader s Responses from Last Month
We received many responses to the November question of the month:
What great chess book still needs to be written?
Among the many interesting (and funny) replies were the following:
Tim Spanton (UK) writes: Tim Spanton s Greatest Games.
Terry Dutton (USA) writes: Vesilin Topalov s Guide to Chess Sportmanship.
Pete Rail (USA) writes:  A Timeless Guide to Computer-based Chess
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (5 of 7) [12/26/2006 4:16:33 PM]
The Q & A Way
Training. It would be interesting to peer through a window into how world-
class players and their trainers use software to stay ahead of the competition.
But we are not likely to learn anything but obvious tricks. However, something
more useful to a broad audience of chess book buyers would be a training guide
for intermediate players. It could layout one successful trainer s approach to
using a thoughtful mix of human and computer instruction.
Ryan Emmett (UK) writes: Starting out in reassessing immortal new ideas:
Understanding, move by move, how to improve on the essential modern greatest
predecessor s logical deadly sins in the dynamic Sveshnikov  explained, for
children, part 1. Coming to a book store soon!
Greg Delaney (USA) writes: From Palma de Mallorca to Reykjavik: My Path to
the World Championship, by Robert James Fischer.
James Neo (Philippines) writes: The book that needs to be written is The 20
Best Games of Chess of the World Champions from Steinitz to Kramnik. The
games should be voted by chess grandmasters, authors and annotators around
the world, and annotated by the foremost chess authors and chess grandmasters.
This will be a treasure trove of over-the-board gems from the past and present
world champions. The games of the FIDE knock-out champions will be
included in a separate chapter, so as to distinguish them from the Classical ones.
Jeff Gerken (USA) writes: The book of realistic expectations. Look at the wide
range of chess players. They all want to improve, and are all looking for secrets
and tips to enhance their playing. But how good at chess can a person
reasonably expect to get, and with what degree of effort? Can I, a middle-aged
lazy adult with a provisional rating of 1380, expect to get to 2000? Can the
expert at the local club expect to become a master? What is it that allows some
of us to play better than others? Are masters and grandmasters really freaks of
nature with amazing abilities average people cannot hope to duplicate? Why do
chess books sell us on dreams? Often written by abnormally gifted players, they
tell us that if only we work hard enough we will improve to astounding levels.
Yes, we will all become President of the United States.
(BP  Is it my imagination, or are the answers getting funnier?)
Copyright 2006 Bruce Pandolfini. All Rights Reserved.
Yes, I have a question for Bruce!
file:///C|/cafe/Bruce/bruce.htm (6 of 7) [12/26/2006 4:16:33 PM]
The Q & A Way
[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study][Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2006 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) [12/26/2006 4:16:33 PM]