Archive for December, 2011

A voracious soul in my youth, I read anything and everything whether I was sitting, standing, squatting, lying down, kneeling, on a bus, on a train, or even -wait for it- in class!!! Exhausting local libraries of their chess resources was once one of my hobbies, even though in years of schooling reading never seemed to have any real purpose or hold any interest. One of my favourite books back in the 80’s was, the late and sadly missed, Simon Webb’s Chess for Tigers.

It was he who first taught me the value of self-reflection in chess, and the importance of knowing your own strengths and weaknesses. He also introduced me to an important, though now possibly anachronistic, dichotomy in chess; that of playing the man and playing the board. What did he mean by such terms? Playing the man involves a more subjective interpretation of what to play, based on what your opponent is more likely to struggle with. Lasker was very good at this, and knew how to prey upon his opponents weaknesses. Playing the board is a more objective account of what to play, consisting of forming plans that the position itself dictates. If your position has a weakness, someone who plays the board may decide that the best move on the board dictates that it be defended, even though he may believe that his opponent is unlikely to attack it, for stylistic reasons -perhaps he is a veteran and plays conservatively. Similarly, if your opponent has a weakness in his position, someone who plays the man may chose to concentrate on it knowing that his opponent cracks under pressure easily, but also knowing that it isn’t the soundest continuation. Kasparov claims to have won several crucial games against Karpov by choosing a line which involved an active continuation, knowing that Karpov’s positional style would cause him to choose an inferior alternative.

It’s been over 20 years since Chess for Tigers was published and chess has changed much since then. Nakamura’s confessions at the recent London Chess Classic got me thinking about whether such a fundamental distinction can co-exist with the rampant pragmatism that not only characterizes but entirely dominates top-flight chess nowadays. During his interviews with the commentary team, it transpired that on two occasions earlier this year, Nakamura had seen the final position of his next game during his preparation for it. In such circumstances, its worth asking whether the option of playing the man is sometimes eliminated altogether in top GM play or whether it is somehow factored into pre-match analysis. Given that opponents are so more easily known these days, it is likely that playing the man has been subsumed into a tripartite approach involving man, board and machine; the dynamics of which are kept under password and key, consigned to internet folklore at best.

R.I.P Simon Webb.

MJM

Read Full Post »

‘Chess is a beautiful mistress’ Bent Larsen
Being a man with a greater interest in life itself than chess, I’ve always thought that the saddest facet of our beautiful game is the lack of female players. Geographical and generational variations aside, you never see that many women around tournament halls, one or two here and there perhaps, but never too many. Why is that? Well, to use one of Larsen’s favourite words, the answer is ‘multiform’ -there is no straight answer. I’ve listed several of what I think are the more significant reasons, in an order of relevance.

Firstly, chess is still thought of as a man’s game, or perhaps more perniciously, as a man’s world. Chess culture is male-dominant, this puts a lot of women off: it doesn’t cause too many to drop out of the game but it deters a lot of women from starting in the first place. The good news is that this balance is being readdressed somewhat, the bad news is that its not happening globally. In the opulent gulf region, for example, girls and boys participate equally. In a tournament in Qatar that I recently played in, the ratio of girls to boys was about 8:1, putting them in the majority for once. In countries where chess is taught in schools, Armenia for example, girls compete with boys on an equal/near equal footing. Such places are an exception to the rule, on the whole women do not yet have a strong voice in the chess world.

Secondly, connected to the previous point is the fact that girls do not have many female exemplars in chess. What do I mean by an exemplar? In essence, someone who inspires you be like them or act as they do. A contemporary, though conceptually unsound alternative, is role-model. The primary difference being that a role-model often has the impartation of moral responsibility whereas an exemplar is an ammoral figure, distinguished by ability or excellence. In chess, we tend to adorn players for their ability over the board and not their conduct or fame away from it, hence the term exemplar is more appropriate. For example, when I was young, I wanted to be like Nimzovitch. Not because of who he was -of this I knew very little- but because of how he played.

Thirdly, unfortunately, there hasn’t been many females that have made it to the very top. Without such successes, young girls are denied a female figure who reveals to them how its done. Boys do not suffer from this problem. Of course, a young girl could admire, for example, Spassky’s play but the gender-based intimacy that enables girls to become like their exemplar (the looser term hero could be used here) isn’t there. Girls are also less inclined -though not entirely unwilling- to model themselves on a member of the opposite sex, therefore, they cannot appropriate success like boys can. By the same token, you don’t find many young boys saying they want to be like Judit Polgar or Hou Yifan, for example. Most young boys choose male exemplars and would probably be considered to be gay if they didn’t.

Fourthly, FIDE has never taken women’s chess as seriously as men’s. There are probably many reasons for this but given that chess has always been blighted by a lack of finances, promoting an area of the game with considerably less practitioners than the male side must seem like economic suicide. That’s a great shame if so. The women’s world championship suffers so greatly that the best female players tend to opt out of it. In his ‘How life imitates chess’, Kasparov points out that much of Judit Polgar’s rise in chess came about through her choosing not to play in all-female events, where the competition and interest was much less. Sadly, until FIDE get their own game together, this is something that is unlikely to change. Given how incompetent FIDE is, the future doesn’t look great for women. We can only wonder how the young Chinese star Hou-Yifan must feel being crowned world champion, knowing that she doesn’t even have the chance to compete against the women that have greater entitlement to it, again Mrs. Judit Polgar being the obvious example.

Fifthly, male chess players seldom make great husbands. Physically speaking, your average male chess player probably hasn’t got much going for himself. We don’t muscle up in the gym, tan ourselves up and drive around in fast cars. Instead, we stare at a board for hours, uninterested in what is around us and what it thinks of us. After doing this for years, we often become (more) anti-social, introverted, bookish, we may even need to wear glasses. When I was 16 -before I had to wear glasses- I clearly remember on guy fawkes night being asked to go to a bonfire party by a mate and a couple of girls (even though one of them thought I looked like a 70’s footballer).  In retrospect that offer seems naive and utterly futile. I had been to the library and took out a book on Paul Morphy earlier that day and was yet to begin reading it. Even though I did consider the option of going to the party with beer, girls, music, bonfires, stolen cars aplenty, I was compelled to refuse and return home to read in solitude. I distinctly remember feeling in my stomach, a burning desire to read rather than party…life stayed that way for years. This is the sort of thing women can become exposed to if they hook up with a chess-player, and let’s be honest -it’s shit. Furthermore, chess players have, a subverted concept of masculinity. For us, masculinity manifests itself in our chess play. We want to become warriors over the board, not in life, but women, if they don’t play the game, cannot see this.

Lastly, from a woman’s perspective, chess itself provides a dubious model of marriage. At the beginning of a game of chess, the king and queen sit side by side in the center of the board. During play a king may legally have more than one queen, but a queen can never have more than one king. Knowing this, the king often shuffles side-ways to find shelter, sitting pensively at his leisure; whilst the queen does all the hard work, prepared to sacrifice herself to save her king if necessary.
‘Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.’ Soren Kierkegaard

Read Full Post »

I began playing competitive chess in early 1988. Since then, I’ve always been less than impressed by players who are unable to accept defeat graciously and learn from it. Time and time again, I’ve both seen and encountered players who come out with the weakest and most ridiculous excuses imaginable upon defeat. I thought I’d list some of the more common ones and give some pointers on how to counter them.

1) Being Unlucky

How many times have you heard people say how well they were playing but then miscalculated something and lost the game as a result. Then they tell you that you were lucky to win or that they were unlucky to lose- what a load of old tosh!

What this really means

In essence this means that your opponent is a weak player. Its rarely the case that people lose under such circumstances in competitve chess. Usually, a series of poor positional moves puts a player under pressure, from which he is more likely to make a mistake and lose.

How to deal with it

You mustn’t argue in such situations as players who make up such excuses probably won’t be able to see where they went wrong prior to throwing the game away. Just humour them instead and say they are right and that you were about to resign. Any move other than the one they played would have prompted an immediate resignation.

2) Being Rusty

What this really means

Ah yes, that old chestnut. The player who loses, loses because he’s rusty. He’s telling you that he’s a man in decline, that somehow he’s weaker today than usual. His brain isn’t working as well as it usually does because of inactivity. This tells you your opponent is an expert in self-deceit and a novice at deceiving others.

How to deal with it

The last time I heard such baloney I replied by telling my opponent that I was also rusty. In fact I hadn’t played for almost a week! He didn’t seem to like that remark.

3) Being Unwell

What this really means

Susan Polgar once playfully remarked that she has never beaten a healthy male. Headaches, colds, fevers, have no symptoms whatsoever, except they affect your chess ability. When your opponent tells you they are ill, what they are really saying is that they are still a big baby and can’t take care of themselves. Chesswise, people sometimes use this excuse when they are not playing their usual game and don’t understand why.

How to deal with it

Tell your opponent you sympathise, explaining that you were shot at on your way to the tournament hall and don’t feel too great either.

4) Being Tired

What it means

This could imply jet-lag, partying, illness, stress, having a working life, many things. If there’s ever an excuse that sometimes does have credibility, it’s this one. I have seen players with a 700+ point rating advantage over their opponent suffer and draw under such circumstances.

How to deal with it 

If the excuse appears genuine, its worth asking what the cause of it is. That aside, chess itself is hard work, your opponent should feel some degree of tiredness. If he became tired during the game, well that’s a stamina issue and not worth taking seriously.

5) Being Distracted/unable to concentrate

What it means

Some players are easily unsettled. Some are troubled in their private lives and allow those troubles to distract them during play. To some extent this is unavoidable but it doesn’t really count as an excuse. Everyone is capable of identifying the source of distraction and blocking it out. If anything it means something within himself is bothering your opponent but he doesn’t know what it is.

How to deal with it

Remind your opponents that at the outbreak of Balkan conflict in the 90’s a tournament got caught up in a bombing raid. There were bombs being dropped on the hills around the playing hall when one of the players, deep in concentration, got up and asked the arbiter what the rate of play was! He was so absorbed in his game that he couldn’t hear the bombs going off. Tell that to your opponent and see what he says.

 

Read Full Post »

Horse play

I must say that, in spite of some rather superficial analysis in its middle, I’m really enjoying John Watson’s Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, which has revolutionized my understanding of the modern game. Though not aimed at instruction, it might as well be since Watson addresses and questions the transition from rule-based chess -which largely characterized the classic era prior to hypermodernism- though to the rule-independent chess of today’s game with such insight that the reader inevitably learns a great deal about their own game too. I’m currently reading the second section of his Knight versus Bishop section, in which he tackles the subject of the minor peices. In the previous chapter, Watson importantly draws attention to the fact that theory on minor peices has seen relatively little development and still holds many of the assumptions from previous eras. One in particualar is the assessment of the minor peice pairs, bishops against knights. Watson points out that the advantage given to the bishop pair tends to be exaggerated and not backed up by statistical analysis at all. He shows how the player with the knight pair can and has throughout history opened up the game early to take advantage of the greater time required to find the optimum squares for the bishop pair. According to Watson, this challenges the prevailing assumption that the bishop pair automatically constitutes an advantage against the knight pair. He adds that though this may become true in the endgame, it doesn’t hold for the middlegame, which is replete with too many exceptions. This is very interesting stuff. We are so often told in some naff book that the player with the knight pair should avoid opening the game and keep everything closed. But the greater agility of the knights and the fact that finding the best squares for the bishops early in the game is difficult, gives the player with the knights a clear and often effective strategy. This is great news for those of us who like to play with the knights more than the bishops. For anyone interested, I’ve listed some of games from Secrets of Modern Chesss Strategy and their respective page numbers as well as inserted a hyperlink. In all games the bishop pair is koshed by the knight pair in the middlegame. I thoroughly receommend Flesch’s instructive game. His book on planning in chess isn’t bad either.

Anderssen v Paulsen 1873 Vienna (Watson pg.183)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019378

Petrosian v Nielsen 1960 Copenhagen  (Watson pg.183)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106499

Adams v Conquest 1996/97 Hastings  (Watson pg.184)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1014876

Ogaard v Flesch 1974 Olso (Watson pg.189)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1282692

MJM

Read Full Post »