How fast a runner and how good at chess?

kolej grad wrote:

As a runner and chess player myself, I've often wondered about performance "equivalence" between running times and chess ratings. I don't think comparing overall finisher/rating list percentiles is meaningful, as they're dragged down by mass participation.

Ignoring age-grading, what sounds right to you ...

3:00 marathon == USCF 2000? (Most can achieve this with dedication)

2:45 marathon == USCF 2200? (Extremely strong)

2:20 marathon == USCF 2600? (US Champs qualifier)

Those marathon times sound easier to me than those chess ratings, but maybe I just had more talent for running and less talent for chess than I had assumed. I'm sure that I spent more time running than I spent playing or studying chess. As I recall, my rating put me among the top 500-600 chess players in the U.S., and my marathon times put me in the Track & Field News annual top fifty lists for U.S. runners.

It's an interesting question.

Out of curiosity, what sort of training did you chess studs do? Read a lot of books, solve chess problems, study grandmaster games, play against computer programs, etc.?

The MonBRO Doctrine wrote:

Out of curiosity, what sort of training did you chess studs do? Read a lot of books, solve chess problems, study grandmaster games, play against computer programs, etc.?

My tournament days ended before the advent of strong computer programs and widely available data bases of games, so I didn't have those options. I read lots of books on openings, middle-game theory and positional play, endgames, and tactics. (I still have about 300 books on the game.) I made a point of solving chess puzzles on a pretty regular basis, as long as they involved realistic positions rather than esoteric compositions. I also studied collections of individual masters, but perhaps not as much as I should have. Undoubtedly, my play would have benefited from much more tournament activity, but I had other things to do, and I honestly hated tournament play -- it was just too stressful to be truly enjoyable.

I think that it's much easier to study the game these days. On a computer, you can click through published games and analyze positions effortlessly (without actual boards and pieces), find games and statistics on every conceivable opening variation, let the computer calculate complicated tactical sequences, and play actual games (with the computer or other humans over the Internet) whenever you want. If I were studying the game seriously today, I would play through complete grandmaster games much more than I did, to get a better sense of how to convert positional advantages into wins against reasonably strong players.

The MonBRO Doctrine wrote:

Out of curiosity, what sort of training did you chess studs do? Read a lot of books, solve chess problems, study grandmaster games, play against computer programs, etc.?

Knowing what I know now, if I were studying chess today I would:

- Pick some good tactics books and do problems daily.

- Learn all the basic positions in Dvoretsky's Chess Endings. Learn them cold.

- Read the Silman chess strategy workbook - twice. Do all the problems. Repeat.

Only then ...

- Read Steve Giddin's opening book, pick a few systems, and play a bunch of *correspondence* games.

I would not play a lot of blitz. Or I might do it for fun, but I would not count it as "practice" time.

Openings study comes last, and only in the context of systems, not memorizing trendy variations.

Assuming some basic talent, I think this is enough to get you to 2200 in two years. Which is higher than I'm rated, but I know little about endings and nothing at all about openings.

Do others agree that learning the openings should come last?

Any other books that I should read? I'm a decent player but have never had any real formal instruction.

5000m PR 15:40, and was nearing 1900 when I played more. Probably closer to 15:20s and low 1700s now, were I to compete in a 5000 and a chess tournament.

Interesting question: what percentage of people do you think could run a 5k faster than [their chess rating over 100, in minutes]? If 1200 is an average chess rating and 22:00 is an average 5k time, it can't be over 5% of the general population, right?

the nite wrote:

Do others agree that learning the openings should come last?

Any other books that I should read? I'm a decent player but have never had any real formal instruction.

I certainly agree that relatively inexperienced and lower-rated players tend to devote far too much of their chess time studying openings. You will generally get more long-term value from studying endgames, tactics, and complete games before you immerse yourself in openings.

As for books: An old classic, first published in the 1950s, is "Logical Chess: Move by Move," by Irving Chernev. It's a wonderful introduction to chess strategy, and -- despite its age -- a number of strong players still consider it to be one of the greatest instructional books ever written on the game.

A nice companion to "Logical Chess . . ." is another old classic, "Winning Chess: How to See Three Moves Ahead," by Chernev and Reinfeld. It's a methodical introduction to a variety of common tactical motifs.

Perhaps there are better introductions to strategy and tactics, but these two have withstood the test of time.

To avoid getting stuck in dogmatic thinking, I believe that it is useful to understand how chess theory has evolved over time. A book like Max Euwe's "The Development of Chess Style" (I think that's its title) addresses this, although it stops short of recent decades. There may well be better and more recent books on the topic.

Please. Modern instruction is much, much better than anything by Chernev and Reinfeld or Euwe - except maybe for the 1001 series for tactics. I doubt you can even get most of their books in algebraic!

Silman may not write great prose, but he knows his audience and he writes exactly at the correct level.

Chess Runner wrote:

ELO

are we human or are we dancer? wrote:

So your rating is 2050 electric light orchestra?

Chess Runner wrote:

Yes. Playing a Perspex violin makes you both fit and smart

NICE.

kolej grad wrote:

3:00 marathon == USCF 2000? (Most can achieve this with dedication)

2:45 marathon == USCF 2200? (Extremely strong)

2:20 marathon == USCF 2600? (US Champs qualifier)

Something tells me you're a much better chess player than runner. That's OK. I'm bad at both.

I think that nearly ANYONE (any male) who ran semi-regularly from 15-22 years of age could break 3:00 if they trained for it. Most masters/rec athletes I know hit 3:00 when they're doing 1:25 for the half and maybe 38 for 10k.

On the other hand, a lot of guys playing chess are never going to get anywhere near 2000, and I don't think any amout of practice and study would get them there.

classic letsrun pissing contest

I've seen ELO, FICS and USCF scales mentioned. How many rating systems are there?

2050 around age 24, and the same for a short time at age 34 in Seattle.

I started by chance going to MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, watching people play, playing and got where I could hold my own overall, though there were some very good players there. Usually they played 5 minute chess. I looked in the libraries for chess books and read them.

One day there was a guy there who beat me easily and wanted to play for quarters. I said no because I didn't do that. He kept asking, while he was beating me, finally shook his head, gave up, and set his clock for 1 minute, still beating me easily. We played a few different times. Then he started setting his clock for 2 minutes. I said hey what are you doing you're still beating me easily. He said, well you're getting better, which I took as a compliment.

We hung out a few times, went to a couple of chess clubs, then the national tournament. They had a fee but he said to just walk in. We were walking between the national class players, he was calling them potzers and no one said anything. I said hey if you can beat them, you should play, you'd do great. He said no he didn't want to bother. We went to his girlfriend's place a few times, and he had chess books piled up on the floor, all of them marked heavily with comments in the sides, lines through the moves and comments, "this is much better", and his own moves in the margins. These were books by top level players. He showed me where to get Russian chess magazines called "shock-monte" or something like that (spelled differently), from a Russian with a gift shop in Hollywood. They contained gamaes from all the top level Russian players. Many years later I still have those magazines, and quite a few other chess books in a box.

It was an interesting time. I stopped hanging out with him as he seemed kind of off the wall occasionally and never exercised. I went my own direction and got back into running again. I had no clue who he was till he passed a few years ago and I saw photos of him from that time. I was shocked to see I'd been hanging around with the most famous chess prodigy of all time.

It was a lesson to me that we never know who we're going to meet, don't realize the significance of the time that we're in, the opportunities all around us. It's good to be aware of these things, the qualities in all the people we come in contact with, the possibilities that can happen.

kolej grad wrote:

Please. Modern instruction is much, much better than anything by Chernev and Reinfeld or Euwe - except maybe for the 1001 series for tactics. I doubt you can even get most of their books in algebraic!

Silman may not write great prose, but he knows his audience and he writes exactly at the correct level.

A lot of strong players of the modern era would disagree with your assessment of books by Chernev and Euwe. I've been surprised to discover that "Logical Chess: Move by Move" is still named by excellent players as one of the greatest instructional chess books of all time.

My biggest problem with Chernev is that he tended to overstate his views. He also wasn't a top-class master. But neither were Silman and Giddins, two of the authors whom you recommended.

Perhaps Silman "writes exactly at the correct level" for you, but not for players who are significantly weaker or stronger than you.

kolej grad wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

Approximately 2200 Elo rating when I was in my early twenties.

2:18-2:20 marathons when I was in my early thirties.

Wow, that's impressive.

As a runner and chess player myself, I've often wondered about performance "equivalence" between running times and chess ratings. I don't think comparing overall finisher/rating list percentiles is meaningful, as they're dragged down by mass participation.

Ignoring age-grading, what sounds right to you ...

3:00 marathon == USCF 2000? (Most can achieve this with dedication)

2:45 marathon == USCF 2200? (Extremely strong)

2:20 marathon == USCF 2600? (US Champs qualifier)

2000 rating is considerably stronger than a 3:00 marathon, in my opinion. You say that most could get there - I doubt that.

Bobby? So cool!

If you're serious, that's an amazing story.

"One day there was a guy there who beat me easily and wanted to play for quarters. I said no because I didn't do that. He kept asking, while he was beating me, finally shook his head, gave up, and set his clock for 1 minute, still beating me easily. We played a few different times. Then he started setting his clock for 2 minutes. I said hey what are you doing you're still beating me easily. He said, well you're getting better, which I took as a compliment. "

When you say "play for quarters" do you mean 25 cents or is that a chess term for 15 minutes/play or 15min/game?

Agreed, though I suppose the age curve changes things a bit for older runners/players. I've always assumed I was a substantially better chess player than runner, though I'd be willing to believe it's about equal. I'm 1750 and just under 17 for 5K at 25.

And no, not just anyone can get to 2000. That's a ludicrous statement, as absurd as the common letsrun statement that anyone can run 15:00.