PDA

View Full Version : my experiences (bumped)



Garvinator
26-02-2004, 10:40 PM
A few times on here it has been queried why we lose quite a few ppl to the sport of chess. So as a new person to the game(6 months approx in competition chess) I will talk about my experiences and my thoughts on where I think ill go from here with chess.

Currently I have a rating of 1273, that will go down when the new ratings are released as I have had, in my opinion, two shocking tournaments.

I lost tonight with the black pieces to an adult with a rating of 945 approx, in 15 moves no less :( . losses inside 30 moves are becoming way too frequent in any style of the game i play(lightning, rapid or normal).

Something that i have noticed up here in queensland is that there is very few coaching resources. there are a few coaches up here, but they charge $30 an hour which with my budget is completely prohibitive. The club I play at has no coaching facilities that i know of. I see one young girl getting coached occasionally and that is it(I dont know if she gets the coaching for free or if her parents pay for it).

the after- mentioned rates for coaching are from the gardiner chess centre.

I feel like each time I make a move, that it could be a blunder, I dont have much awareness of whether a move is good or bad. I dont know how to improve my game or to get coaching that could improve my game.

Now for the tournament scene (as it relates to keeping ppl in the game).

The most popular form of tourney style is the swiss format. From my experiences and how i feel about my experiences, im starting to feel that for the average weekender or one day a week tourney, maybe the swiss format is not the best format.

I dont know how to word this next idea so it sounds more politically correct, so ill just say it and lets you guys decide on a better wording for me.

Instead of using the swiss format all the time, perhaps the entrants for each tourney should be divided up into rating groups and then you play only those ppl in your rating group. So for a 7 round weekender, players would be divided up into groups of 8. the top 8 players according to rating would be in one group(group A) and then the next 8(group B) and so on down the entrants. This way the players would be guaranteed that each game is against players of similar ratings.

Also as players go from one tourney with this format to another tourney with this format, they would move between different groups, so they would get to play against players of higher and lower ratings.

I am just suggesting this as a possibility because i feel like if i dont improve and get some coaching that will make a noticeable improvement to my games, I will probably go find another sport to play or go back to one that I have played before. I dont want to be one of the worst at a tournament and have to play on board 23 or so in each event. I want to be one of the better players have a chance of winning outright prizes, not hope for a rating group prize in a swiss event due to the vagrancies of swissperfect.

Help would be appreciated, even more appreciated if someone can point me in the direction of affordable coaching ;)

ChessGuru
26-02-2004, 10:57 PM
GG.

Coaching at $30 per hour is cheap! If you look to any other sport, music or academic subject you will not find individual tuition for less than $30 per hour. Many places charge $50, $60 up to $100 for an hour of tuition.

In a country where chess is small the way to grow is not to charge less for coaching, we need professional coaches who get paid as professionals. In the US coaches charge $100+ per hour and get it! It is more likley that the money spent will actually be WORTH it...often you can find a uni-student or someone who is an irregular coach who might charge just $30 per hour, but the benefit of this coaching is going to be far less than 1/3 of the benefit of a coach who devotes his professional life to being good at what he does. This is a hard thing for someone new to the game and rated just 1200 but it is the same as any other sport...good coaching costs money.

Of course players want to improve, but that is not the only reason they play chess. The same as I play basketball, tennis and volleyball...partly it is competitive and sure I like to win and of course I don't like to be the worst, but more often than not it is social, relaxation and just fun! That is how chess should be too...

If you are intersted in improving there are PLENTY of free resources on the net (try pittsburg chess club and exceter chess club)...it might even be worth going to the Gardiner Centre and paying for a "Guide" rather than a coach....get your Guide to show you HOW to study chess and HOW to improve, don't rely on them to make you a good player. Any coach who tells you they are going to improve your chess isn't worth $1! A coach should point out your weaknesses and design a program which will teach you how to improve, not teach you ABOUT chess. A well spent $30 every month to 6 weeks and some motivation at home and you could be 1600 in 3-4 months.

Good luck!

firegoat7
26-02-2004, 11:16 PM
Watch strong players play chess live, try to figure out why they play that move. It is free and cheap.

Join ICC, plenty of free coaching and lots of practise.

Look at your own games and pick out key positions to ask stronger players at your club what they would play in this chess position.

Buy a chess book and actually read it.

Billet players when they travel interstate. These friendships can last forever and generally lead to a shared experience of chess.

Don't worry about improving just study and enjoy the game.

regards FG7

JGB
26-02-2004, 11:23 PM
I agree with both post former postings. :)

and get yourself a good chess program, preferably Chessmaster 8 or 9000 or a new version of Fritz and strating playing against it at about a rating of about 200 above yourself. Analyse all your games, get the computer to also analyse it. Play Blitz and longer games, mix it up bit, but always analyse your games: where did you go wrong, what where the better alternatives, where were sacs to be made or combinations to be played. You dont need a good coach, you need a bit of time and lots of practise at different types of positions. Understand why you win and lose and learn from your loses. They are more valuable than your wins! Its sad but true.

Good gaming.

James

Garvinator
26-02-2004, 11:36 PM
Watch strong players play chess live, try to figure out why they play that move. It is free and cheap.

Join ICC, plenty of free coaching and lots of practise.

Look at your own games and pick out key positions to ask stronger players at your club what they would play in this chess position.

Buy a chess book and actually read it.

Billet players when they travel interstate. These friendships can last forever and generally lead to a shared experience of chess.

Don't worry about improving just study and enjoy the game.

regards FG7

fg, i already have quite a few decent books on different aspects of the game, openings middlegames endings etc and other assortments. I read them quite often but i think they could have done more harm than good lol(if that is possible). i feel i play better on the net than i do in real life, mainly to do with the distractions in a tourney environment.

to chessguru, why is $30 an hour a good deal for the student? One of the advantages of the sports you listed is that a person doesnt have to win to feel like they played a good game. For instance, basketball, its a team sport. For your standard of basketball, you can perform your skills to a standard above your normal in a game and still lose. at least that way you can say, ill played well, better luck next time etc. The $30 coaching for your skils improvement was probably well worth it if you leave the game satisfied with your skills improved.

In chess, the only way to really judge if you played well is the end result(99% of the time), a player can play 60 good moves and then one howler and its end of game, i cant think of another sport that is that harsh. I dont know how to express what i feel any better than this :cry:

JGB
26-02-2004, 11:54 PM
In chess, the only way to really judge if you played well is the end result(99% of the time), a player can play 60 good moves and then one howler and its end of game, i cant think of another sport that is that harsh. I dont know how to express what i feel any better than this :cry:[/QUOTE]

sorry chess doesnt work like that.... If you play good chess and your opponent plays much worse you will win. There will be no 'howler move'. A howler win is only possible in a game played between 2 players who have no idea what is taking place. If you play better moves than your opponent your going to win most of the time. The chance that you will pull out a howler move is pretty slim if youve been playing much better chess the whole game. Only the player who has played better chess will have the available resources to force a quick win (95 % of the time). Your opponet will be much more likely to blunder if hes playing worse chess as he will have more threats to defend. And more possiblities for a howler.

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2004, 12:06 AM
The chance that you will pull out a howler move is pretty slim if youve been playing much better chess the whole game.

I've done it, though, several years ago. Beware complacency. A rook up and waiting for my comprehensively outplayed opponent to resign, I hung my queen to a knight. Q for R down vs a 1700 I would expect to lose 99% of games but I somehow contrived to win the game anyway. And the tournament as well. :owned:

Learnt my lesson though, I hope.


Only the player who has played better chess will have the available resources to force a quick win (95 % of the time). Your opponet will be much more likely to blunder if hes playing worse chess as he will have more threats to defend. And more possiblities for a howler.

This is very true. Most blunders occur under pressure in inferior positions.

Cat
27-02-2004, 12:22 AM
Help would be appreciated, even more appreciated if someone can point me in the direction of affordable coaching ;)


GG, if you want help at the Gardiner Chess centre, there's always someone around to go through your games, etc. Tell Graeme you want a little feedback on your games. Myself or Bernie Saavedra have been around on monday nights, and either one or both of us would be happy to go over some games at the end of the night. In fact, we're holding a FIDE comp at the moment, and there are some competitive games to watch/analyse, etc.

I think video's are a great learning tool, and I would recommend Daniel King who is a great, systematic commentator on video.

Garvinator
27-02-2004, 12:52 AM
GG, if you want help at the Gardiner Chess centre, there's always someone around to go through your games, etc. Tell Graeme you want a little feedback on your games. Myself or Bernie Saavedra have been around on monday nights, and either one or both of us would be happy to go over some games at the end of the night. In fact, we're holding a FIDE comp at the moment, and there are some competitive games to watch/analyse, etc.

I think video's are a great learning tool, and I would recommend Daniel King who is a great, systematic commentator on video.
lucky you didnt recommend two of the current staff there for coaching david :clap: i would have had some fun with that if you did :eek: :p ;)

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2004, 01:10 AM
Instead of using the swiss format all the time, perhaps the entrants for each tourney should be divided up into rating groups and then you play only those ppl in your rating group. So for a 7 round weekender, players would be divided up into groups of 8. the top 8 players according to rating would be in one group(group A) and then the next 8(group B) and so on down the entrants. This way the players would be guaranteed that each game is against players of similar ratings.

Many players would dislike this. Firstly even an exceptional performance would only net them a divisional prize and a promotion to the next division up; you would not get to see wonderful results like the sub-1800s who have placed 2nd or so in a few strong weekenders in the last year.

Secondly and more importantly, many players realise their game will best improve by playing against stronger players and watching how they win.

We had this discussion at our club last night as a single division round robin for our club champs is getting quite impractical, it runs for several months. Even so, a motion to split into two divisions didn't quite get up because of these kinds of concerns.

By the way, this board itself is something of a free coaching resource. Post a game you've played in the analysis section and you should get a few useful comments.

Kerry Stead
27-02-2004, 01:50 AM
From my own experience, just play ... and play a lot! Its actually a really good way to learn ... and make sure you look over your games at the end (preferably with your opponent if possible).

Another good thing to do is find a group of people at a club that are around your strength (something like the Sydney Grade match competition is ideal for this - not sure if there's anything similar in Queensland), and play lots of games against them. I remember when I was starting out, and played at a club ... was playing in an U1400 grade match team ... and from time to time the team would get together for an afternoon of blitz somewhere - good social atmosphere, as well as getting a chance to work on your chess.

Also don't be afraid to try different things ... I discovered an opening at a junior chess camp that I went on ... saw a book on it at a tournament not long after ... did a little bit of reading ... and then it became a mainstay of my opening repetoire! Blackmar-Diener Gambit - you should at least have a look at it sometime ... not only did I get good results with it, but being a gambit, it FORCED me to attack, so I had to improve my calculation and tactics, otherwise I would just get mauled! I've since moved on with my openings, but it still helped add about 500 points to my rating.

Also as has been mentioned, have a look at some GM games - you won't understand them all - heck neither do I a lot of the time - and try to figure out why someone played a move ... also if you can look at some annotated games, where a GM helps explain the moves, then that will also help a lot. You might even find a GM who's style you can try and emulate ... something to aim for.

Don't be too discouraged - we all have to start somewhere!

Garvinator
27-02-2004, 02:00 AM
. You might even find a GM who's style you can try and emulate ... something to aim for.

Don't be too discouraged - we all have to start somewhere!
just to scare a few ppl, i have done alot of this :D and i for some reason seem to find kramnik's games rather easier to understand :lol: that is though when he decided to play a game that lasts more than 30 moves :eek:

Alan Shore
27-02-2004, 05:29 AM
lucky you didnt recommend two of the current staff there for coaching david :clap: i would have had some fun with that if you did :eek: :p ;)

Are you referring to Sonter and Anastasia? What fun would you have had?

Steadmeister's advice is good.. I also recommend doing puzzles.

And what would you see as acceptable coaching rates? $30 is quite good I think.

arosar
27-02-2004, 08:55 AM
This is very interesting thread. See gg, don't be discouraged man, We need people like you who can start interesting threads. This is very important.

As for the system you suggested - which is that players are divided into ratings group, well KB's already addressed some shortcomings. However, I want to mention that some tourns do cater to this because they are 'close' events. Like the Aus Ch and Doeberl. Then there are other tourns like the recent Toukley which are 'restricted' (ie. under 'X' rating). I recall NSWCA tried this a coupla years back - some U1800 only event - but can't provide comments on that as to numbers, feedback from players, etc.

As for coaching, next time I see you on ICC man, I give you some tips OK. Like when to use crimson jihad, gang-bangs, scaring-scaring, sixty-five, and so on. Shall we make a date? Listen, important thing is: you enjoy your chess. I don't play tourns anymore but I play chess everyday, solve puzzles evey night, play through games. And don't focus too much on 'how to play'. Expand a bit and read chess history. As a quick primer I recommend R Eales' book. Also buy the Addict series. See also, 'The King' by Donner - brilliant! Finally, this one I keep crappin' on about - a fine intro into Aussie chess - 'Aus Chess into 80's' by the man himself - Rogers. If you can find 'em up there, might wanna purchase some of them old CW's and CIA's - I have a few in my collection. Finally, take out a subs with NIC. You just need to get to know the game of chess a little bit for it is like a gorgeous sheila that you just met. Know what I mean?

Now this business of coaching a little bit. I was talking to a chap last night about this topic actually. There's a mob down here in Sydney who charge this sorta amount, $30. My god man, I tell you man I reckon chess coaching is the way to go. These mob down here have got virtually the entire market cornered. I just about reckon that they're making a killing! They got 'em 1700-1800 players going around to schools teaching kids. Easy money!

AR

ursogr8
27-02-2004, 09:14 AM
This is very interesting thread. See gg, don't be discouraged man, We need people like you who can start interesting threads. This is very important.

As for the system you suggested - which is that players are divided into ratings group, well KB's already addressed some shortcomings. However, I want to mention that some tourns do cater to this because they are 'close' events. Like the Aus Ch and Doeberl. Then there are other tourns like the recent Toukley which are 'restricted' (ie. under 'X' rating). I recall NSWCA tried this a coupla years back - some U1800 only event - but can't provide comments on that as to numbers, feedback from players, etc.

As for coaching, next time I see you on ICC man, I give you some tips OK. Like when to use crimson jihad, gang-bangs, scaring-scaring, sixty-five, and so on. Shall we make a date? Listen, important thing is: you enjoy your chess. I don't play tourns anymore but I play chess everyday, solve puzzles evey night, play through games. And don't focus too much on 'how to play'. Expand a bit and read chess history. As a quick primer I recommend R Eales' book. Also buy the Addict series. See also, 'The King' by Donner - brilliant! Finally, this one I keep crappin' on about - a fine intro into Aussie chess - 'Aus Chess into 80's' by the man himself - Rogers. If you can find 'em up there, might wanna purchase some of them old CW's and CIA's - I have a few in my collection. Finally, take out a subs with NIC. You just need to get to know the game of chess a little bit for it is like a gorgeous sheila that you just met. Know what I mean?

Now this business of coaching a little bit. I was talking to a chap last night about this topic actually. There's a mob down here in Sydney who charge this sorta amount, $30. My god man, I tell you man I reckon chess coaching is the way to go. These mob down here have got virtually the entire market cornered. I just about reckon that they're making a killing! They got 'em 1700-1800 players going around to schools teaching kids. Easy money!

AR

hi AR
Usually I am not on your wavelength for some reason. But this post to g'g' is super. Well done. Beautifully written in the vernacular. :clap: :clap:

Now g'g'g, read closely what AR has written and appreciate the highlights.

starter

jenni
27-02-2004, 09:42 AM
A few times on here it has been queried why we lose quite a few ppl to the sport of chess. So as a new person to the game(6 months approx in competition chess) I will talk about my experiences and my thoughts on where I think ill go from here with chess.

Currently I have a rating of 1273, that will go down when the new ratings are released as I have had, in my opinion, two shocking tournaments.

I lost tonight with the black pieces to an adult with a rating of 945 approx, in 15 moves no less :( . losses inside 30 moves are becoming way too frequent in any style of the game i play(lightning, rapid or normal).

Something that i have noticed up here in queensland is that there is very few coaching resources. there are a few coaches up here, but they charge $30 an hour which with my budget is completely prohibitive. The club I play at has no coaching facilities that i know of. I see one young girl getting coached occasionally and that is it(I dont know if she gets the coaching for free or if her parents pay for it).

the after- mentioned rates for coaching are from the gardiner chess centre.

I feel like each time I make a move, that it could be a blunder, I dont have much awareness of whether a move is good or bad. I dont know how to improve my game or to get coaching that could improve my game.

Now for the tournament scene (as it relates to keeping ppl in the game).

The most popular form of tourney style is the swiss format. From my experiences and how i feel about my experiences, im starting to feel that for the average weekender or one day a week tourney, maybe the swiss format is not the best format.

I dont know how to word this next idea so it sounds more politically correct, so ill just say it and lets you guys decide on a better wording for me.

Instead of using the swiss format all the time, perhaps the entrants for each tourney should be divided up into rating groups and then you play only those ppl in your rating group. So for a 7 round weekender, players would be divided up into groups of 8. the top 8 players according to rating would be in one group(group A) and then the next 8(group B) and so on down the entrants. This way the players would be guaranteed that each game is against players of similar ratings.

Also as players go from one tourney with this format to another tourney with this format, they would move between different groups, so they would get to play against players of higher and lower ratings.

I am just suggesting this as a possibility because i feel like if i dont improve and get some coaching that will make a noticeable improvement to my games, I will probably go find another sport to play or go back to one that I have played before. I dont want to be one of the worst at a tournament and have to play on board 23 or so in each event. I want to be one of the better players have a chance of winning outright prizes, not hope for a rating group prize in a swiss event due to the vagrancies of swissperfect.

Help would be appreciated, even more appreciated if someone can point me in the direction of affordable coaching ;)

I would give you the same advise I give to parents of aspiring juniors - it takes time. I find it usually takes a year from when a junior first starts playing chess until they feel they are making a step forward.

Tony and I have been playing for a number of years now. Tony does a sporadic amount of work, I do none at all and learn most of my chess from watching games at comps. Tony is slowly getting better (even won a ratings group prize at the Vikings Weekender!). So I think a level of patience is necessary- 6 months is just no time at all. If you are doing the work (and I do think regular puzzles are a very good idea), then it will come together for you. There are many online sites where you can download lessons and work through these (eg www.chesskids.com - not to be confused with CG's site)

Most players I know are quite happy to go over the game afterwards if you suggest it and you do learn a lot from that - it is harder if you have just played (and been beaten by), a kid.

Belconnen Chess Club does run a variety of tournaments, in order to address the problem of weaker players. Currently the tournament is broken up into 2 bits - the bigger and stronger Open and the minor. The minor is a mixture of juniors and weak adults. I am finding it quite fun, as I find I have been competitive in all my games and Tony is currently winning it (although really nervous about his game tonight when he plays one of the better juniors).

There is another one called the Premier and it is a series of round robins, formed on strength. There are normal swiss events as well, so it is a nice mixture.

As far as coaching goes, I tend to agree that $30 is not much for an hours coaching. It is what we pay for coaches in the ACT. Some of our younger juniors charge less - we have a range from about $16 per hour for a young coach to $25 for a uni student and $30 for an adult. However if a highly qualified coach comes from interstate, then that is much more. Also I pay $48 per hour for Tamzin's violin teacher and she is only a few years out of Uni. I have heard rumours of up to $100 per hour for a very experienced violin teacher.

The ACT is fortunate in having some dedicated adults ( currently Peter Simpson and Shaun Press, although I think Ian Rout and Paul Dunn were involved in the past), who run free coaching on a Saturday morning for children and adults. They have been doing this for many years.

skip to my lou
27-02-2004, 01:50 PM
There are many online sites where you can download lessons and work through these (eg www.chesskids.com - not to be confused with CG's site)

http://www.chesskit.com/training/

Ian Rout
27-02-2004, 02:56 PM
My advice is not to worry too much about the unavailability of affordable coaches at this stage. Players having coaches is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past only players who aspired to a relatively high level or were in a hurry would receieve individual coaching.

For less than the cost of about five hours coaching at $30 an hour you can buy a magazine subscription or three books and you will probably find these more cost effective. Analysing and discussing with opponents and other players is free, beyond the club membership which you would pay anyway, and after purchasing books home study has a marginal cost of zero.



I feel like each time I make a move, that it could be a blunder, I dont have much awareness of whether a move is good or bad.

The advice we all get (and which is followed by those who, unlike me, have a bit of self-discipline) is to go back through your games and work out what you did right or wrong. Although you may not realise at the time whether you were playing good or bad moves it will be easier, with hindsight, to identify what went wrong.

Some players like to record the time spent on each move. If you are getting lost positions after 15 moves it sounds like too litle time is being spent on basic tactical calculations. One possible cause is too much lightning, which encourages superficial play at the expense of concrete considerations.

Garvinator
27-02-2004, 03:00 PM
Some players like to record the time spent on each move. If you are getting lost positions after 15 moves it sounds like too litle time is being spent on basic tactical calculations. One possible cause is too much lightning, which encourages superficial play at the expense of concrete considerations.
i record the time spent on each move and i dont play lightning very much at all, i hate it actually :eek: , so next :lol: :doh:

Ian Rout
27-02-2004, 03:10 PM
i record the time spent on each move and i dont play lightning very much at all, i hate it actually :eek: , so next :lol: :doh:

The other side of the argument is that lightning (in moderation) improves the ability to spot patterns quickly.

Rincewind
27-02-2004, 03:21 PM
The other side of the argument is that lightning (in moderation) improves the ability to spot patterns quickly.

I agree. I'm a slow player by most people's standard and a constant advocate of non-guillotine finishes in club events. But find some blitz practice is good a improving pattern recognition and board-sight under pressure.

It also helps give you confidence and play better in time scramble scenarios (should they arise) in games played under longer time controls. However, time management strategies should help minimise the frequency that this one finds oneself in a time scramble. ;)

arosar
27-02-2004, 03:23 PM
Lightning is also good for decision-making under pressure. You see some of these blokes who literally shake. Their hands hover from piece to piece because they can't decide. Their thinking is clouded see. What you gotta do is stay calm and focus.

Actually I got a special story to tell about Mr. Rout here. A coupla years ago we played each other in some GC tourn. He beat me, in fact. Then he went to the blitz play-offs against 3 IMs!! I saw his game against Zhong and Mr Rout here was winning. Problem is he was too freakin slow!! You were Black and you used that special Benoni with Bishop on e7 wasn't it Mr Rout?

AR

Ian Rout
27-02-2004, 04:04 PM
Yes I probably was winning that one for a while, but it was the Benoni with B-d6-c7 (the Snake).

chesslover
28-02-2004, 06:28 PM
Something that i have noticed up here in queensland is that there is very few coaching resources. there are a few coaches up here, but they charge $30 an hour which with my budget is completely prohibitive. The club I play at has no coaching facilities that i know of. I see one young girl getting coached occasionally and that is it(I dont know if she gets the coaching for free or if her parents pay for it).

the after- mentioned rates for coaching are from the gardiner chess centre.


From a strict cost/return financial analysis, paying $30 for coaching an hour is just madness. You will never win enough prizemoney to justify that sort of continuing investment.

You are better off saving that money for a deposit, or dollar cost averaging it to a managed share fund or even doing a business/investment course - as that will give you a better monetery return

skip to my lou
28-02-2004, 06:39 PM
You will never win enough prizemoney to justify that sort of continuing investment.

Just because you didn't win enough prize money doesn't mean other people will not win enough prize money. I usually get rating prize in most tournaments and has recovered anything I spent on chess coaching..

Now look at tournaments in europe.. You can make a living from chess and even make some big bucks.

Im not saying its easy, but it is POSSIBLE, and many people already DO IT. :doh:

Once again, you are wrong... sorry... mistaken.

chesslover
28-02-2004, 08:37 PM
Just because you didn't win enough prize money doesn't mean other people will not win enough prize money. I usually get rating prize in most tournaments and has recovered anything I spent on chess coaching..

Now look at tournaments in europe.. You can make a living from chess and even make some big bucks.

Im not saying its easy, but it is POSSIBLE, and many people already DO IT. :doh:

Once again, you are wrong... sorry... mistaken.

"Big bucks" from chess tournaments? :confused:

maybe for the elite Super GMs, but most certaibly not for most of the GM's

In Australia, you just cannot make a living from chess prizemoney.

skip to my lou
28-02-2004, 09:53 PM
"Big bucks" from chess tournaments? :confused:

maybe for the elite Super GMs, but most certaibly not for most of the GM's

In Australia, you just cannot make a living from chess prizemoney.

I dont know what prize money is like today, but err, when anand won fide, he took home half a mil. :eek:

You can go overseas to play chess tournaments.. You know.. "aeroplane"........

You said "never" which is...

Wrong! .. sorry .. mistaken.

skip to my lou
28-02-2004, 09:58 PM
You will never win enough prizemoney to justify that sort of continuing investment.

I got out more than I put in, which means my expense related to chess is justified. :doh:

Nevermind, you never understand anything. Better stop wasting my time eh :lol:

:owned:

Garvinator
04-03-2004, 11:04 PM
ok i just played another tourney game tonight and had another limp loss. I have stated previously that i think having tournaments where players are divided up into rating divisions is a good idea and i stand by this more now.

Starter has said that players want more competitive games and he is right. I am tired at the moment of being thrashed by players 400 rating points above me. I dont find this fun and I dont get to feel like I actually played or offered my opponent any real opposition.

I was asked to put up my next game i played from a normal tournament. So here goes(wonders can he get the board stuff right :lol: )
my opponent white v G,Gray black



1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 0-0 5. Bg5 b6 6. e3 Bb7 7. Be2 d5 8. cxd5 exd5 9. 0-0 Nbd7 10. Rc1 Rc8 11. h3 Be7 12. Bf4 c5 13. Nb5 Ba6 14. Nxa7 Bxe2 15. Qxe2 Ra8 16. Nc6 Qe8 17. a3 Rc8 18. Qb5 Bd8 19. Bd6 Qe6 20. dxc5 Nxc5 21. Bxc5 Qxc6 22. Qxc6 Rxc6 23. Bxf8 Rxc1 24. Rxc1 Rxf8 25. Rc8 Ke7 26 Ne5 1-0

skip to my lou
04-03-2004, 11:10 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/announcement.php?f=39&announcementid=5

Kerry Stead
05-03-2004, 02:33 AM
OK, my simple statement about the above game (regardless of any tactical oversights by the players) is WHAT IS WITH YOUR OPENING CHOICE?? I can understand playing the Nimzo-Indian - its fairly straightforward to play, but why, WHY transpose into a Queen's Indian?? GMs struggle to understand it and play it properly, so why do you think you would do any better?
Nimzo is fine, especially after 4.Nf3. The plan is simple - Bxc3 bxc3, and then because you don't have a dark-squared bishop, all your pawns go on dark squares and your pieces attack the doubled c pawn (moves like Qa5, Ba6, etc). It doesn't always work, but at least the plan is straightforward, so you have to worry less about the strategy/planning side and just concentrate on how to put the plan into action, while keeping an eye out for tactics.
Also, don't feel intimidated by a 400 point rating gap. You can play better than your rating, and your opponent can play worse ... so you never know ... play a good game and you might just win!

ursogr8
05-03-2004, 07:47 AM
ok i just played another tourney game tonight and had another limp loss. I have stated previously that i think having tournaments where players are divided up into rating divisions is a good idea and i stand by this more now.

Starter has said that players want more competitive games and he is right. I am tired at the moment of being thrashed by players 400 rating points above me. I dont find this fun and I dont get to feel like I actually played or offered my opponent any real opposition.

I was asked to put up my next game i played from a normal tournament. So here goes(wonders can he get the board stuff right :lol: )
my opponent white v G,Gray black




hi ggrayggray

You will get the best of advice on your game from BB posters, so I wish you luck with the posts about to come your way.

An interesting comment you make about 'competitive games'. I have not had much BB support for this to date. (Although I have received excellent support while we were debating the appropriate 'competitive metric measure', and also the provision of data). Matt Sweeney in particular has always preferred the chance to pulling off the big upset, whereas I think most players vote with their feet and seek tournaments where they get 7 games with a chance of winning each.

starter

Garvinator
05-03-2004, 09:04 AM
hi ggrayggray

You will get the best of advice on your game from BB posters, so I wish you luck with the posts about to come your way.

An interesting comment you make about 'competitive games'. I have not had much BB support for this to date. (Although I have received excellent support while we were debating the appropriate 'competitive metric measure', and also the provision of data). Matt Sweeney in particular has always preferred the chance to pulling off the big upset, whereas I think most players vote with their feet and seek tournaments where they get 7 games with a chance of winning each.

starterthe game i posted was my game from last night, but was probably not the best one to demonstrate some of my probs, but i thought i should put it up as it was the most recent :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 12:04 AM
When opponents play aggressively, dropping knights or bishops on b5 or g5 (or the other way round, if they're black) sometimes it's a good move and sometimes it's largely bluff with no real threat. In this case, just boot that knight with 13...a6. OK, it can go to d6, but it's not the end of the world, much better that than losing a pawn for nothing.

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 05:09 AM
When opponents play aggressively, dropping knights or bishops on b5 or g5 (or the other way round, if they're black) sometimes it's a good move and sometimes it's largely bluff with no real threat. In this case, just boot that knight with 13...a6. OK, it can go to d6, but it's not the end of the world, much better that than losing a pawn for nothing.
yeah, i missed Nc6, just didnt see it for some reason. I think that is the main part of my problem, just not being able to see one move. I do that frequently unfortunately.

Garvinator
08-10-2004, 04:42 AM
Hello everyone. thought i would bring this thread back to life again.

Have just re read what was said on here the first time i posted this thread and realised i was just about to say alot of stuff that i have said before. I still have the same opinions i had six months ago.

Anyways, on to the points of this post. We have speculated as to why there are very few adults between the ages of 18-30 playing tournament chess. I think i can help to give a couple of key reasons (maybe these problems are exacerbated in qld and are not so much of a problem in nsw/vic.

The adult situation can be divided up into two sections:

1) the new adult, hasnt played any type of competitive chess and is just starting out in competitive chess (my area)

2) the adult who has just left the junior scene.

Regarding point number one-

The new adult has a great many challenges when they first start playing competitive chess. They have to play against other adults who have been playing for many years or they have to play against juniors. From what i see up here in qld, the juniors are at a great advantage because of two reasons,

a) there are many junior tournaments in brisbane/gold coast, so they get to play very regularly ie school competitions, caq junior tournaments, adult tournaments etc. There are no where near as many tournaments for adults up here.
b) juniors dont have to pay out of their own pocket for coaching. this means juniors can get regular and decent coaching and improve. The adult has to struggle along with their own financial needs, meaning that any coaching they can afford comes out of their own pocket.

With the financial point too, rating prizes are an issue. the new adult has almost no hope of getting a rating prize cause they have to battle the improving juniors in their rating group (dare i say that in the lower division there will be at least one under rated junior at least). It may not be the same junior each time, but there will be at least one in each of the lower rating divisions.

With all these situations, playing against experienced decent standard of play adults it is no wonder that myself and possibly other new adults to the game find the experience of playing very unfriendly and rather not enjoyable.

2) The new adult who has just moved from the junior scene-

what a change this person goes through. He/she moves from heaps of junior tournaments and generally getting financial help from parents to generally not many tournaments (up here in qld especially) and having to pay for coaching themselves. Gone is the social junior environment and they move in to the individual adult world.

It is no wonder that adults leave the game when they have to battle all these forces.

When someone dares suggests that things need to change to keep players in the game or to make things more inviting for new players ie moving away from monster swiss formats to using different formats, it is scorned upon by the same type of players that are causing new adults to not want to continue playing.

These are my own thoughts after having played one year now of competitive chess. Do i feel dejected at the moment about how things are, certainly do. I feel like the situation up here especially isnt going to change anytime soon and i quite often think about tossing in the idea of trying to become a decent player as i feel it is too difficult, with all the factors that are against me.

Ian Rout
08-10-2004, 12:04 PM
Interesting to contrast this with the conspiracy theories on the Mt Buller thread that it's the juniors who get a raw deal. Where does the truth lie? Well someone else can work that out. Here's a few suggestions.

1. Find other people who don't like children and organise a non-junior-friendly club and tournaments. There are no rules prohibiting this, it's just that some people like you to think that there are. I occasionally feel like doing it myself but don't have the energy.

2. The idea that you have to have a coach is a recent phenomenon. Of course a coach helps, other things being equal, but for the cost of a few hours coaching you can buy a library that you can read for years.

3. Don't be too ambitious. Not everyone can be a grandmaster. Enjoy the other aspects of chess - spectating, analysis, reading, administration - and be satisfied with incremental improvements

4. If all else fails, try bridge. Strictly as a last resort only.

Rincewind
08-10-2004, 12:59 PM
4. If all else fails, try bridge. Strictly as a last resort only.

:eek: Or as well. They are not mutually exclusive. :eek:

ursogr8
08-10-2004, 01:09 PM
Hello everyone. thought i would bring this thread back to life again.

.
.
.
These are my own thoughts after having played one year now of competitive chess. Do i feel dejected at the moment about how things are, certainly do. I feel like the situation up here especially isnt going to change anytime soon and i quite often think about tossing in the idea of trying to become a decent player as i feel it is too difficult, with all the factors that are against me.

gg''

Good thought provoking post of yours.
If I may...two observations.

1 When I joined the local Chess Club Committee in 1980 it was for the express purpose of helping the Club be viable and of a type that I would like to go to regularly. So Ian Rout's post ^^ was right on the money.

2 Don't post at 4am in the morning. The posts written by all of us are gloomy at that hour. In fact, by the time you read this you will probably feel better already.

starter

arosar
08-10-2004, 01:29 PM
These are my own thoughts after having played one year now of competitive chess. Do i feel dejected at the moment about how things are, certainly do. . . . i quite often think about tossing in the idea of trying to become a decent player as i feel it is too difficult, with all the factors that are against me.

gray, it's not all about you man. I could tell you to go jump off the bridge - but you're me mate. You're everyone's mate here. We love you man. Just hang in there. You have a very bad perspective on chess life you see. That's why you're all melancholic and all that. Important thing really is that you like chess, OK? Don't worry about ratings, titles, etc. Can you remember the first time you fell in love with chess? If you can manage that mate, you'll be alright.

AR

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2004, 03:01 PM
2 Don't post at 4am in the morning. The posts written by all of us are gloomy at that hour.

Not quite all. I'm used to being up at that hour.

Actually I have written the odd stereotypical "4am rant" in my time, but not many.

1min_grandmaster
08-10-2004, 04:08 PM
I agree with most of what ggraygray has said in his "back to life again" post. Young adults, both former juniors and completely new players, face huge obstacles that are better handled by veterans and juniors.

When I started in tournament chess about 4 years ago, I was (and still am) a young adult who didn't earn much, and had to pay for myself. I also experienced the above difficulties (in NSW; it's not just in QLD). Actually, I think I was lucky in a sense because I improved very quickly, but without any coaching, just through learning by mistakes and being aware. I was also lucky because I think the above mentioned problems have become even bigger now, because the junior dominance is very evident now.

I disagree with the idea of changing from swiss to round-robin format playing players your own rating. You're still going to face heavily underrated juniors whatever format you have. And whatever tournament you play, there are going to be these juniors.

I dont blame the rating system for juniors being underrated (that is just my opinion, but many would agree). The new system has in fact reduced this problem. But it's a simple fact that lots of juniors have low ratings, so they have more room for improvement, and they can do this quickly because they have more time, no commitments or financial struggles like adults, and their coaching is paid for by their parents (in fact, so are their entry fees to tournaments).

Something should be done about this. Of course, you can't stop juniors improving; they are not at fault. But we should be doing something to encourage those new players who will face the above problems. I dont know what can be done though; this is an open topic.

Brian_Jones
08-10-2004, 05:58 PM
This is developing into an excellent thread. At long last we have some real insights into why adults 18-30 are not playing chess. I think some of them are frightened away by lack of success; for others it is lack of the social side. I don't pretend to know all the answers but I am sure things could better if there were more teams events and more females. Also, we need to "fix" the unsocial players who put people off chess events.

arosar
08-10-2004, 06:02 PM
Have an event where you stop sort of half-way through, have lunch, a few drinks, then start again.

My mate was telling me that in Germany there is a blitz tourn where after every round they actually drink beer.

AR

JGB
08-10-2004, 06:20 PM
Have an event where you stop sort of half-way through, have lunch, a few drinks, then start again.

My mate was telling me that in Germany there is a blitz tourn where after every round they actually drink beer.

AR

... there are a few such tournaments but they are running low on participants these days. The chess and beer and really seperated theses days here. At clubs like Wetzisreute we drink beer while we train on Thursdays, but for the tournaments it is now banned. A beer after every round of blitz just turns into a mess after the 5th or 6th game and the chess played is terrible although still very enjoyable.

Libby
08-10-2004, 06:52 PM
This is developing into an excellent thread. At long last we have some real insights into why adults 18-30 are not playing chess. I think some of them are frightened away by lack of success; for others it is lack of the social side. I don't pretend to know all the answers but I am sure things could better if there were more teams events and more females. Also, we need to "fix" the unsocial players who put people off chess events.

I definitely think the social issue can be a bit of a problem. If we are talking 18-30 I don't think you can underestimate the role of "seeking a mate" and "seeking a life" in a drop off in chess participation.

I used to trot along every weekend to watch football and baseball when my husband played (and he was good enough to return the favour at netball and softball) but I'm not sure he could have brought me along to watch him play chess for 2 or more hours - let alone a whole weekend. Selfish female that I am. ;) Aside from dubious spectator interest, I could sit at the footy or baseball with the gaggle of other wives/girlfriends - we could chat without being glared at (sorry to sound lame). I actually met my husband at baseball.

We definitely have some chess couples around but the scarcity of women over the boards (10 in over 100 entries at Box Hill is it?) doesn't make for a lot of opportunity. I can't say I've seen many "partners" at events - what is on offer for them if they do come along?

For juniors graduating into senior ranks, my experience (from other sports) is that a proportion are looking to shake off a level of enforced or semi-enforced participation coming from their parents. Or they're trying to work out where they are going with the changes brought on by Uni, work and relationships. This doesn't affect those at the top so much as the potential footsoldiers of your sport - they need a reason to continue to be engaged. Chess has to be something they really enjoy enough to continue it ahead of other activities, or it has to offer the same, or better, social opportunities as their other choices.

I have a lot of sympathy for "gg" as I was a footsoldier in my sporting life. I spent many years in the higher (but not elite) grades of local softball and netball and was dismayed to find myself up against some svelte sixteen-year-old I remembered coaching (when she was nine) who ran me ragged all around the court. I played softball in A-reserve (the second highest of about 8 grades in Canberra) last when I was about 32 (sigh). I was pitching some cunning curve balls and off-pace balls against a bunch of whipper-snappers from the ACT U14 teams. Although I could trick them for a few innings they tended to be belting me out of the park by the end of the game. Chess is not unique in the experience of being pounded by little kids.

However being part of a team and enjoying that social aspect of my sport kept me involved until I started paying the price with chronic tendonitis etc. Over time I had definitely redefined what I wanted out of my sport and enjoyed playing at a slightly different (lower) level. As long as I felt I had a chance in a game - that was OK - I didn't need to win all the time. Nobody likes being crushed at anything.

Also - nobody likes those horribly superior chess players who make it patently obvious you are wasting their time with your pathetic efforts. Toning down the superiority complexes might get a few more adults to risk participation. I've lost track of how many "Dads" tell me they used to play in Uni but they "are not really good enough" to play Club Chess.

ursogr8
08-10-2004, 08:55 PM
.
.
.
We definitely have some chess couples around but the scarcity of women over the boards (10 in over 100 entries at Box Hill is it?) doesn't make for a lot of opportunity. I can't say I've seen many "partners" at events - what is on offer for them if they do come along?



As I look around the room at the moment (Box Hill Friday 8.55pm)
10 ladies playing
8 Mothers sitting on the sides waiting for finishes
4 ladies in the Canteen
(and 7 mothers have dropped off kids to go shopping)

120 folks in the three rooms in total.

starter

ps 1 mobile phone on the front desk for kids to 'ring home'

Garvinator
09-10-2004, 05:37 AM
to add to my post and the comments raised by others, thanks. I think chess is one of the only sports where the D grade players, if you wish to give them a grade, are pitted against A grade players every tournament.

Most sports are divided by playing level. I can remember from indoor cricket that teams are divided up by playing standard. Teams that are good and take their indoor cricket seriously play against similiar teams.
Teams that are there to have a run around, drink and socialise are also pitted against like minded teams. These two types of teams are not pitted against each other unless the less standard side wishes to play in the higher grade.

I understand the both nsw and vic run interclub chess, we dont up here. So i dont have that opportunity to play. I guess if there were more competititions up here for players of equal standard, then i would like the open monster swiss format in some tournaments as it would be something different :)

Garvinator
09-10-2004, 05:41 AM
on the social aspect of ppl of opposite sex, i consider that i have almost no chance of finding a girlfriend in chess. Those females that are playing are either too young for myself, or are married/ have boyfriends, or are too old for myself (not too old in general though :D ).

We say there arent many players of 18-30, well then girls aged 18-30 would be rarer than the paradise parrot :P, especially if they arent very good players. Just anticipating those who would say Anastasia Sorokina :P :P

Spiny Norman
09-10-2004, 07:41 AM
Hi all,

Just got back from a business trip and caught this thread. I wanted to post a couple of comments and seek feedback. I'm posting from the point of view of someone who played chess frequently from the ages of 16 up to about 21, then basically gave the game away until this year. In analysing WHY I gave it away, I came up with the following:

1. I had achieved all that I wanted to achieve. My goals were fairly limited. In the early couple of years I had won some prizes in club championships (Best Junior one year, 2nd in the Reserves Section next year) which encouraged me to keep going. The prizes were chess books, which was good. Then, one year (after a couple of the strongest players @ the club had left) I actually won the club championship. I managed to do this by playing the King's Gambit in all my games with white and blitzing my opponents who simply weren't prepared for such a "crude" approach to the game. :) I promptly gave the game away and didn't play another competitive game until just last Friday when "starter" was kind enough to give me a game in the Box Hill Open.

In analysing #1 above I have realised that such behaviour is a pattern in my life. I kinda, sorta, "master" a new interest (I have played competitive chess, tennis, basketball, etc) and promptly lose interest. I would imagine that there's be a certain percentage of the population who show similar traits. If so, then its pretty tough for any club, any sport, to cater for such people. The only way is to keep raising the bar so that the interest, the desire to achieve, is constantly dangling like a carrot in front of the participant.

2. The venue. At the time I was playing at Ringwood Chess Club in the 80's, the venue was a schoolroom in an old primary school. Pretty dismal/grim surroundings. It felt "poor". The club had too few members, and therefore had no opportunity to get a better, more prosperous venue.

When I compare my experiences back then to my last two visits to Box Hill, there's no comparison. Box Hill feels vibrant, alive, its a big venue, there's lots of activity, etc. Its the sort of place where you'd have no trouble finding half-a-dozen similarly-minded people to build relationships with and meet with on a fairly regular basis.

3. Stage of life. From 16 - 18 I was basically a kid, still living at home, etc. Then I got a job, got a car, developed new friendships/relationships that were outside of my chess world, and that gradually dragged me away. There was little of a social nature to encourage me to want to attend off my own bat, and little in the way of social activities that people from the chess club organised to attract me to spend time with them. Now I'm a (hopefully) fully mature adult, pretty self confident, quite happy to go and visit new places on my own, without needing friends to "go with me" for moral support. So I'm quite happy to turn up at a new venue, be proactive, introduce myself to people. I know HOW to integrate myself into the life of a club, how to "get noticed", how to build friendships, how to demonstrate my value to the existing members by getting myself involved in helping with setup, etc.

As for the standard of chess I'm playing? Like "gg" its pretty poor at times. But I've gradually reached the point in life where I realise that (like the old cliche) its not the destination that's important, its the journey.

I play chess for the pleasure of the competition, for the excitement in the pit of my stomach when my opponent plays a move that I hadn't anticipated, especially when you analyse that move and think "oh oh, this is looking tough". I enjoy the challenge of trying to refute the opponent's play, of trying to dig deep into my memory and dredge up all the books I've ever read ... "now then, what should I do ... hmmm ... fall back in an orderly fashion".

Kids/juniors probably get something completely different out of chess. In fact, I know they do. I don't know what it is, because its too far in the dim, distant past for me to figure it out.

But I would hope that those charged with the responsiblity of running the clubs have taken the time to "ask the customer". I know most of you have done so, because I've seen you talking about it here.

Dem's my thoughts...

"gg" ... I hope you don't lose the passion for chess. But even if you do for a time, there's every chance that you'll pick it up again in later life and have quite a different perspective on the whole thing.

Knowing what I know now, I wish that I had NOT given it up for nearly 20 years. I'd be a much better player now if I hadn't.

jenni
09-10-2004, 05:23 PM
(not too old in general though :D ).



He's finally learning some diplomacy :clap:

Garvinator
09-10-2004, 07:42 PM
He's finally learning some diplomacy :clap:
bite me :P :P ;) :lol:

Hobbes
12-01-2012, 09:23 AM
Whatever happened to Garvinator?

antichrist
12-01-2012, 10:49 AM
on the social aspect of ppl of opposite sex, i consider that i have almost no chance of finding a girlfriend in chess. Those females that are playing are either too young for myself, or are married/ have boyfriends, or are too old for myself (not too old in general though :D ).

We say there arent many players of 18-30, well then girls aged 18-30 would be rarer than the paradise parrot :P, especially if they arent very good players. Just anticipating those who would say Anastasia Sorokina :P :P

from what I have seen if a girl is good lookin and wears just a little low cut all the guys google and then complain they lost coz cant concentrate, and that is only for starters. I give them queen odds to ingratiate myself with them, Johnny B lays down his coat for them to walk over....

We actually need the competitive firery in your face femo-nazi type to be good chessplayers but would we want to marry them?