How fast a runner and how good at chess?

many names one locale wrote:

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

Quarters, 25 cents, money. The games were 5 minutes.

many names one locale wrote:

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

There are two different things here which are easily confused.

First there are ratings systems--This is simply a set of mathematical equations that rate how much each win, draw, and loss is worth based on the formulas. ELO is a ratings system. It can actually be applied to different sports--so there are ELO ratings for soccer--although it started with chess. The USCF ratings system is described here:

The second thing is a ratings pool. Any ratings system is only valid for the pool in which players are compared. FICS, for example, stands for Free Internet Chess Server. It is merely a pool. It uses the Glicko system to rate its players. Chess.com also uses the Glicko system. That doesn't mean that a Chess.com rating is equivalent to a FICS rating--although they would tend to converge if the players on those sites are representative of the chess playing community at large (i.e. the closer their pool of players is the more likely you are to have a similar rating on both sites, assuming an adequate number of games).

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.

Yes, it is pretty much accepted wisdom that you should study endgames long before openings and should spend a lot of your study time on tactics.

In addition to a number of good chess books mentioned Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is good. Aron Nimzowitz' My system is an older book but a classic with really great ideas (Nimzowitz pretty much invented what is called the hypermodern school).

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Yes, it is pretty much accepted wisdom that you should study endgames long before openings and should spend a lot of your study time on tactics.

In addition to a number of good chess books mentioned Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is good. Aron Nimzowitz' My system is an older book but a classic with really great ideas (Nimzowitz pretty much invented what is called the hypermodern school).

I agree with the general sentiment that weaker or less experienced players should study endings more and openings less, but I also wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that one must master the endgame before studying the opening.

I think that there is a lot of value in studying the development of chess play, from Morphy to Kasparov and beyond. Each great chess player stands on the shoulders of the giants of the past. One generation's principles of play may be come to be seen as crude rules of thumb or simplistic dogma by a later generation, only to be revived (probably with some significant refinements) still later. An individual's development will often progress along similar lines.

Avocado's Number wrote:

I agree with the general sentiment that weaker or less experienced players should study endings more and openings less, but I also wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that one must master the endgame before studying the opening.

I think that there is a lot of value in studying the development of chess play, from Morphy to Kasparov and beyond. Each great chess player stands on the shoulders of the giants of the past. One generation's principles of play may be come to be seen as crude rules of thumb or simplistic dogma by a later generation, only to be revived (probably with some significant refinements) still later. An individual's development will often progress along similar lines.

Probably nobody should know eight moves deep in multiple lines of the Sicilian before they have mastered the Lucena position, though.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

I agree with the general sentiment that weaker or less experienced players should study endings more and openings less, but I also wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that one must master the endgame before studying the opening.

I think that there is a lot of value in studying the development of chess play, from Morphy to Kasparov and beyond. Each great chess player stands on the shoulders of the giants of the past. One generation's principles of play may be come to be seen as crude rules of thumb or simplistic dogma by a later generation, only to be revived (probably with some significant refinements) still later. An individual's development will often progress along similar lines.

Probably nobody should know eight moves deep in multiple lines of the Sicilian before they have mastered the Lucena position, though.

I've mastered Bonetti's, Capa Ferro and Agrippa.

Sub 15k guy at 20. Horrible chess player, but really appreciate the game.

Inigo wrote:

I've mastered Bonetti's, Capa Ferro and Agrippa.

Sub 15k guy at 20. Horrible chess player, but really appreciate the game.

I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro, don't you?

Hey, kolej grad and Avocado's Number (and anyone I left out), thanks for the thoughtful responses!

In the '70s I picked up chess because of the Fischer boom. Being a country hick, there was almost nobody to play. No resources, either. I won about 500 and lost 3 games in about a 3 year span, mostly beating the same 5 kids. I dropped it when I went into varsity sports.

Picked it up again about 20 years later. Man, I didn't know nothing. There were resources online and a library with books that I used to catch up. I usually opened with the double fienchetto without ever having heard of hypermodern.

I actually played in the 2000 US Open, anybody could get in if you had the entry fee. Managed to get a superior position in all 9 games, but went on to lose 5 of them. I saw Nakamura (as a 6th grader) play IM Adler on one of the top boards. Yermolinski won that year.

Nakamura just won the US Closed again, with a couple of stellar wins. He is currently rated #6 in the world.

Polgar's site is regularly updated with what's going on in the world of chess.

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/

I took up jogging in my late 30s. I hope to get my 5k pr under 21 minutes before I am 50. I have also run a half marathon in fewer minutes than I weighed in kilos (102 minutes when I weighed 103 kilos)

Right, if you study nothing but endgames to start with, you likely won't ever get that far in a game to make use of your knowledge.

As for tactics, I have a book, The Encyclopedia of Chess Middle Games/Combinations, that is terrific. It is split up into chapters according to the type of combination, like Double Attack, Annihilation of Defence, Space Clearance, etc. Once you begin to see this kind of thing, you realize how much of chess you didn't even know existed.

So really, if you want to take it seriously, you need to work on openings, middle game and endings. It's no good to neglect any of it.

scroca wrote:

Right, if you study nothing but endgames to start with, you likely won't ever get that far in a game to make use of your knowledge.

I'm trying to let go of this thread, since this is a running blog, but ... did you see the recent game where Gelfand played Pe6-e5 in the first few moves against Anand? In a world championship match! That's not a move anyone memorized. It comes from positional understanding.

That's what studying endings provides - not just knowing those specific positions, but understanding how pieces really work together, and what they can do. Learning the B+N mate, for instance, is not just about "how to mate" - it's about how to use those two pieces to control space. Same with Q+B v Q+N - you learn the potential and limitations of those pieces without a bunch of other clutter. Don't even get me started on the importance of pawn structure.

When 1500 players "study" the opening, they're not learning concepts - they're blindly memorizing lines. I remember one tournament, an Ecuadorian qualifier for their national championships, where I fell into a trap - but neither he (!) nor I knew the proper continuation, so I was just up material. What's the point of learning trappy lines like that? Even if he'd won - what would he have learned that he could use in another game? Memorized openings are a one trick pony. You can have a bunch of them, but you still don't have a working cavalry.

If you want to get good at chess for the long term, you need tactics, and you need *understanding*. While understanding "could" come from studying the opening properly, I've never seen it happen. It does come from studying endings.

kolej grad, that's a very good post. I think it's fine to have a thread about chess on here.

Here's an interview with Fischer where he states that Cabablanca was the player he admired most from the past, followed by Morphy. Also he says that none of the champions of the past would not have a chance against any good 14 year old now, due to the advances in knowledge of the openings. However if they were brought to the present, once they learned the openings they would again have their greatness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EuxVOgrEig

typo:

*none of the champions of the past would *have a chance

kolej grad wrote:

If you want to get good at chess for the long term, you need tactics, and you need *understanding*. While understanding "could" come from studying the opening properly, I've never seen it happen. It does come from studying endings.

I agree with this. Well I've got a conundrum. I found a chess site on the internet and pulled out the old box of chess books. After not looking at chess at all for more than 3 decades, I've joined 7 games, and am surprisingly doing well so far. It's find of fun, but I'm wondering - why spend time playing chess?

What is the point of it??? Does it have any practical benefits pertaining to any other areas of life? It does give me something to do, but I'm not sure that's enough and would like to see what others feel about this.

Also, the site is free (gameknot) but has ads, and more functionality without them, so I'm thinking of joining it for a year, against my proclivity to not spend any money for such things. Feedback on this is appreciated too, and if there are any comparable sites. If any of you have been playing for a long time through the years, I'd especially like seeing your views.

J.R. wrote:

After not looking at chess at all for more than 3 decades, I've joined 7 games, and am surprisingly doing well so far. It's find of fun, but I'm wondering - why spend time playing chess?

What is the point of it??? Does it have any practical benefits pertaining to any other areas of life? It does give me something to do, but I'm not sure that's enough and would like to see what others feel about this.

I had a somewhat similar experience. I was a tournament chess player during my teens and early twenties, reaching a rating of about 2200. However, I found chess tournaments to be stressful, and the social environment of the chess subculture unfulfilling (to say the least). Probably more importantly, I wanted to focus more on running, and weekend chess tournaments are very difficult to work into a consistent training schedule. I quit tournament chess, and just played an occasional offhand game for a while. Eventually, I quit playing entirely.

Many years later, I discovered a decent computer chess program on the Internet, and started playing against the computer when I was trying to avoid work. I also went back to some of the hundreds of chess books on my shelves, particularly game collections of some of the great masters, just reading them for enjoyment. I've stopped by the local chess club a couple of times recently, just to play five-minute chess. I've also been following some international tournaments and matches, playing over games that seem interesting. (It is MUCH easier and enjoyable to play over games on the Internet now. Thirty years ago, it was a hassle to set up a board and play through games and variations.)

To me, it's especially interesting to see how the game has evolved at the top level. I don't believe that the top players are more talented now, and I wouldn't say that the "quality" of play is better, but the style of play is different in a number of respects.

I think that it's entirely reasonable to be cautious about investing precious time in any endevour -- chess, running, writing on message boards . . . . All of these activities can crowd out more important and urgent matters. But don't underestimate the value of an activity done for pure enjoyment. I'm glad that I can enjoy reading a book on the games of Capablanca; most people can't. I came across a chess puzzle recently that just thrilled me; I'm glad that I could appreciate its beauty. I no longer look to chess as a means to any end other than pure enjoyment in the thing itself, and I think that's perfectly O.K. In fact, I think it's pretty healthy.

kolej grad wrote:

That's what studying endings provides - not just knowing those specific positions, but understanding how pieces really work together, and what they can do. Learning the B+N mate, for instance, is not just about "how to mate" - it's about how to use those two pieces to control space. Same with Q+B v Q+N - you learn the potential and limitations of those pieces without a bunch of other clutter. Don't even get me started on the importance of pawn structure.

.

Exactly right. You learn concrete lessons by studying the endgame that can be applied at any time. These lessons apply in the beginning, middle and endgame. They are just much easier to learn when there are fewer pieces on the board. That doesn't mean you shouldn't ever look at beginning or middle-game. When you look at openings, though, you should be learning ideas, not just rote memorization.

Avocado's Number and Mr Obvious, thanks much for sharing your views.

The gameknot site made me turn off my ad blocker yesterday, which was off putting. However it turns out the ads are not that bad and don't show up when games are being played, so I won't need to join after all.

Avocado that's impressive that you have more than 100 chess books. I used to read all that the library had and, due to being quite selective, only got a few of my own.

I think BF saw me in the library the first time reading chess books, and I told him to buzz off, which is kind of funny. Later on after we played at MacArthur Park and were going places, I told him all the time that he should enter tournaments and that he "would be great!", having no idea who he was. Hilarious. I think his girlfriend's name was Sharon.

In my box I have 16 issues of "shokmate" (checkmate?) magazine from Russia that are full solely of games in algebraic notation from their major events. A dozen of them are from 1979 and 80. I've circled various games, moves, and made notes in the margins.

A book "sahovski informator" (chess informator), Belgrad, fide 1979 is very good, full of games with karpov et al.

"The chess player", Milano Italy, 1978, which I got in January, 1980, is a moderate sized book chock full of 680 great games with top players, petrosian, spassky, korchnoi, fischer, szabo, tal. It's a lot easier watching games on the internet than wading through books.

A book of the 4th candidates tournament belgrade 1959.

A lot of basic books, art of the attack, basic chess endings, practical chess endings; a really nice book full of the tal vs botvinnik world chess championship match 1960, chock full of annotations by tal, a great book that helped me a lot playing through all the games, published in 1977, strangely written in the old style notation. There are 35 books in this box, more somewhere else, and a few scorebooks from some of my club games in 1972. From the dates in my books and the dates of shokmate, I'm guessing that the time I knew BF was around 1979. BF impressed me as being a very genuine person, caring, and needing a good friend. Chess is probably a good hobby to have for relaxation from running, though can be very stressful at times. I think chess players are much more serious, and not so friendly as runners.

My blitz rating on lichess and chess.com is 2500 and I run about 20 miles a week.