McCreadyandChess

The hallmark of the artist is simplicity.  –  Larry Evans

Somewhat irrelevant introduction 

After an inordinate amount of time in the desert and an inability to find anything better to do than re-create a chess library -I say re-create because I stopped playing for well over a decade and threw out most of the books I had ages ago- I thought I’d work through what I bought on-line, starting with one of my favourites as a young player -Chess for Tigers.

Sadly, the author is no longer with us, after dying in tragic circumstances, (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2277), so it was with some poignancy that I began reading a book which I had not come across since my teens.

I should point out that I could not get hold of the original Pergamon Edition and had to settle for the updated Batsford Edition. However, such details are trivial as the modifications to the second edition are minor, and do not really alter the book on the whole.

Basic Observations

First question, what is it that makes CFT (Chess for Tigers) a good read? The answer is twofold; firstly Mr.Webb is a good writer (rare in chess) his style is clear and concise, meaning that he is able to communicate effectively; secondly, also immediately apparent, is who the target audience is, and therein lies the real strength of the book. Unlike many writers and titled players, Webb has the ability to understand and explore the mind of the average player. Again, this is usually not the case in chess and in fact most areas of expertise. In order to achieve expertise it is necessary to overcome error and focus on perfection, therefore, when presented with error, an expert can easily become flummoxed by its presence, particularly when their area of expertise is more of a pastime than a profession per se, as is the case with chess. Even the greatest player of his day, irrespective of his era, would probably never be able to answer the question ‘Why did that amateur play that move?’ effectively. Understanding -the lack of ability- in others is a recherché artefact in chess literature and amongst titled players in general, an easy way to see this is to notice how GM’s sometimes take interest in the lower sections at tournaments. You may occasionally find one of them looking at a position with interest, however, you sense that they are not so interested in the play itself but are thinking more in terms of ‘How did that bishop get there?’ or ‘How did he end up with such bad pawns?’ or ‘Why doesn’t he just checkmate him?’ Sadly, I’ve had more than one top GM look at my score sheet and even return to my game, since the position was so irregular. For this reason, I would like to point out that I think this review of CFT may be more valid than others because I am precisely the type of player that the book was written for: I am not a tiger…well not yet anyway, I am an average club player whose love of chess blinds him towards certain practicalities, of which Mr Webb is unduly aware.

Second question, what is the purpose of the book? It is, according to the back cover, to move the club player away from the abstraction of aesthetics and towards the beastly brutality of winning at all costs. This overall objective is retained throughout, giving the book an even consistency. Mr.Webb had clearly thought about the ramifications of playing for a win at all costs before he put pen to paper, which cannot be said of all publications in chess.

I shall not go into great depth, instead I shall restrict myself to basic observations. First and foremost, even simple points made by Mr.Webb have a degree of practicality that is often overlooked by more modern, technical works. For example, in the chapter ‘How to Build an Opening Repertoire’ he suggests restricting yourself to an opening (line) as a main response and then choosing an alternative. Though simple enough, such advice is not always followed by club players. I know individuals that like to and do play just about everything they can, slavishly following the more modern GM professional approach, but the difference is that they are rated between 1800-2100 and are far from the level of those they imitate. Given the time and understanding that learning 1 d4, 1 e4, 1 c4 and all responses with black requires, I am more inclined to lean towards Mr.Webb’s advice. Obviously this does not apply to master level but for the average club player, it is simple and sound advice. As Mr. Webb put it ‘The main advantage in specializing in an opening line is that you obtain positions which suit you and which you are familiar with. If you play several different openings, you will find yourself having too many problems to solve at the board. and this will make you a less effective player than you ought to be.’ (pg36)

Another point I would like to draw attention to comes from the chapter ‘How to win won positions’, something which I am personally poor at. Mr.Webb offers four main points of advice, again, being simple but effective (1) Keep the Initiative (2) Give your opponent as little chance as possible (3) Check complications carefully but don’t be afraid of them (4) Don’t assume the position will win itself. Each piece of advice forms a sub-heading in which Mr.Webb goes into more detail and explains what he means. One of the things I like about CFT is how well backed-up his points are with examples, the games he offers to support his points do their job well too throughout, suggesting that great care and thought was put into the book, sadly I cannot find some of his games on-line, and cannot thus link them ( I will try to add them to chessgames.com and return at a later date).

Other points of interest include why playing the best move might not always be the best thing to do, how to swindle your opponent, and what to do in drawn positions. Should you wish to gain further insight into the mechanics of team-play or perhaps quick-play, you will find quality material inside that will help you in your play. Regarding team-play, issues such as the role of the captain are covered. Having been one myself for many years, I know how important the role can be, so it’s pleasantly surprising to see that it hasn’t been overlooked.

A potential criticism

Much of what Mr.Webb is anchored around the dichotomy play the man/board, with Mr.Webb suggesting that club players stick to playing the man. In truth I am not sure what to make of this. When I first read this book, back in 88, this was the chapter I spent the most time on, however, there are question marks regarding the antithesis itself. Computers have modernized the game in such a way that sometimes no man is present! So at the very least we should reflect upon a trichotomy ‘Play the man/board/computer’. But even without interference from AI, the concept of playing the man/board itself is in much need of clarification. How do we apply this to tactical play, for example, when our thought processes are direct and propositional in content, (If p then q [If the knight moves to d4 then I will capture it with the knight on f3]). Am I to believe that when calculating tactics I should be able to somehow introduce terms of reference with a qualitative change in meaning, one that can encapsulate a different approach altogether? For example If his knight moves to d4 then I will capture it with my knight on f3 ? There is no change in meaning here, what my opponent may or may not be thinking of is of no relevance. I may look to my opponent and his probable style for clues concerning strategic or positional play but that’s all -surely?

During tactical phases of the game play can go down forcing lines for a number of moves, isn’t this a critique of such advice? Under what circumstances are we playing the man when this occurs? Perhaps, then, we should think of Webb’s advice as being generic and nothing more than a practical approach towards the game. He cites world champions as being knowledgeable enough to prepare for their opponents, and mentions that club players may also know their opponent well but in my opinion these cases are peripheral in chess. More often we don’t know much or anything about our opponent, let alone the position we find ourselves in over the board. At lower levels players have a tendency to over-compensate and will ruin the balance within a position for the sake of general principles. If we become reliant upon what are essentially stereotypes in chess, such as ‘He’s Russian, he must be strong, or, he’s old so tactics won’t be his forte’ we are more likely to get it wrong than right. Ok, so your opponent is in his 60’s, so you want to play aggressively towards him but when do you play like that in the game? From the outset or do you wait? If you wait, how long for and why? What if the position becomes too unfamiliar? Do you -as Mr.Webb will also go on to suggest- strive towards a position you are more comfortable with or do you stick to playing your man regardless?

I think more needs to be said over what playing the board/man entails. Chess has become more professional since the 70’s, playing styles at the top level have become more concrete. In the recent Anand-Gelfand match neither was playing the other, both were following computer analysis for the most part. Most modern players would frown upon Mr.Webb’s advice in Chapter 2 of his great book, context however, allows us to refrain from criticism, given that it was written in 77, and that the primary objective of the book is to increase the practical winning chances an average player might get.

A Definite Criticism

If there’s one point in the book which personal experience won’t allow me to accept, it is the relatively minor point concerning ‘The Barrage Technique’, which for those who don’t know is a direct attempt to win on time when your opponent is in time trouble. Essentially it means storing up thinking time so that you can blast out at least 3 moves at once, thus causing your opponent to panic and use more time. Mr.Webb states quite clearly that this technique should not be used if you are in a winning position, however, its so risky really I don’t know if it should be used at all. Not only is it partly dependent upon a rule which is now illegal in chess, writing down your move first, it invites error all too easily as you yourself are just as likely to fall victim to your own strategy. To pull ‘The Barrage Technique’ off well, I think you need to be of a certain strength and constitution which most non-tigers cannot reach.

A Modern Discovery

Somewhat sadly, Mr.Webb’s attempts to modernize his classic text came a little too early. A shame because being such a great correspondence player, he has much to say on it, and much of that has found new meaning in the modern forms of the game. With e-mail chess becoming increasingly popular, and GM’s becoming more insistent upon viewers spending time over-the-board whilst analysing, CFT’s chapter 14 Correspondence Chess contains advice which has found new relevance. There are a number of certain errors which Mr.Webb tells us to look out for in correspondence chess which apply equally to e-mail chess, such as learning how to ensure you are analysing from the game position still and not from within your own analysis. Having done it countless times myself, I have returned to the board set-up, only to find I was analysing from the anticipated move rather than the actual move played, sometimes sending a reply from the wrong position. He is also quick to point out how your games are likely to contain a greater number of strong moves, and how this should impact upon your chess in that form of the game. All interesting stuff, I found.

To conclude, I did enjoy re-reading Chess For Tigers again. Mr.Webb writes well and encourages his readers to self-reflect, offering advice on what they should be looking for and why throughout. It is unashamedly autobiographical, which is how chess literature should be, rather than a mishmash of games and positions which the author will inadvertently or otherwise hijack with his own material and experiences, or pass off as his own when such is not the case. The book loses its way towards the end a little but remains entitled to being ‘A Chess Classic’, it is a great shame that Mr.Webb is no longer with us, I would have liked to have told him how much I like his style.

For those interested, below is his profile on chessgames.com. I will add games of his in due course.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=23327

In addition, here’s a link to his respected series, ‘How do chess players think?’

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/how-do-chess-players-think

The pupil wants not so much to learn, as to learn how to learn.  – Samuel Boden

MJM