Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: What's Happened to the Juniors?

Fritz 12 is coming...

Computers do Help you improvve...is the funny stuff.

Serious bit.

What has happened to the Juniors?

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=371

Paul Denham · Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:17 am Post subject:

" I noticed in the Chess Scotland forum coaches and players
suggesting teaching methods for our junior squad.

DVD's. Various Programs (......sigh), training weekends. On line coaching...."

Geoff.

Interesting post where on the one hand you criticise use of computers in training (in the main from what I gather, trying to play and beat the silicon monster and in trying to analyse games so that next time you play the computer move instead of a more human move).

You then sight T&C training which I take to be jargon for tactics & combinations (rather than terms and conditons training... something which R. Fischer was great at ! Wink

).

Surely there is scope for analysing games in the fashion you have done (probably manually) though it can be speeded up with Fritz to supplement this approach, then a coach deciding there is a definite weakness. e.g. "thats the Xth time I have seen you play a move which allows your opponent to win material due to you having an overworked piece"?

Some of these training programs and materials have useful exercises in them (CT ARt etc) where the problem could be "deliberately practiced" and in future games player and coach could see how well that weakness has been improved (or not).

I agree "white to play and win using a discovered attack" type problems can be overdone in training and there is one book and one approach which may be useful for people trying to improve their T&C's.

1. The book is Cheng's book which gives 600 positions and only who is to play. no hints or tips and some problems do not have tactical solutions so its a bit like real chess.

2. Dan Heisman's idea that if you take a tactics book (any one) you can get double value out of it by taking a "white to play and win problem" and solving it. THEN reassess the same problem from a "black to play and try to deal with white's threat" perspective. Some of this may sharpen people's skills at "defensive tactics" which ultimately ( I agree) these "red arrow" problems do not help with.

So in summary I would say you seem to have manually spotted a common weakness which cost the juniors some points at the Euro's but I would argue that a good coach (something I can make no claims whatsoever to be Crying or Very sad

) and some targetted use of elements of computer tools and parts of structured programs could help.

Paul

Phil Thomas · King Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 758

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:48 pm Post subject:

Hi Paul.

T & C training?

I can tell you this, it does not stand for 'Tablebases and Computers.'

I'm totally against any method of training involving looking at a
monitor with a view of playing OTB.

Fine if when you entered a tournament and played each other
via a monitor. But you don't.

You must study and practice with the weapons you will be fighting with.
Not pictures of the weapons.

How can you be expected to reproduce an idea over the board
if you have never seen the idea over the board.

Look at the games. I have spared the blushes in a few games in
which I sincerely hope the score is wrong.

This quick fix "here's a DVD or log onto this site.' method of trainning
is a failure.

I also noticed that the blunders came from reasonably well played
openings and perfect pawn structures.

What's been going on?

It's as if the PC Brigade have got hold of our lot and told them
it's not nice to play combinations against their opponents.

OK let us repair the damage.

Go to one of these Tactics and Combinations sites. Download 100
positions (the examples are brilliant - the method hopless).

Print them out and send them every junior player in Scotland.

Don't worry about the cost, there is money in the kitty, Keith Ruxton
and I put it there.

Instructions.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE POSITION FROM THE DIAGRAM.

They must set up the position on a full sized board and calculate.

I know it's a pain in the bum - no pain no gain.

We have to get their bright eyes use to roaming over the 64 squares and
their sponge like minds full of 3D patterns and ideas.

This method works.
I have on my side every good chess player from Morphy to Kasparov.
Nobody learned anything from a computer before Kasparov.

"I have to embrace the new technology."

OTB Chess is played on a 3D set v a living, breathing, farting, wriggling,
unwashed, foul smelling, sweet eating human.

It you train and study on a 3d set and can learn to lose yourself in
a 3D postion. Then you will ignore the human.

You will not get this from sitting slack-jawed staring at a small screen
with a pretty diagram, right hand on mouse clicking through positions.

We must get our younger players back on track for OTB chess.

Give them teeth, give them skill, give them cunning....

.....give them a chance.

Paul Denham · Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:53 pm Post subject:

Geoff,

Fair play you speak from the heart and to a point I agree with some of what you say.

Thinking about it over my soup at lunch I realised the best possible way to do these problems would indeed involve solving over an actual board with standard tournament pieces. For speed, a kindly parent or a coach setting up a spare board with next problem while talented junior solves problem on one board, then when he/she solves it, the parent/coach set up the next but one and so on.

I think you do the species a bit of a major disservice re translating from 2D into 3D - that's what map reading and hell even tom tom reading is all about though the latter spoonfeeds people directions (and could be argued as stopping people thinking/navigating for themselves).

I have won many a nice OTB game by finding a tactic I solved in 2D at home actually exists out on the board. Shivan Murdochy will have a scoresheet in his collections from the Lothians Knights in 2008 where I play a wee rook move and after a min or so he resigns. Why? I just played a game winning cross pin, which I spotted having solved such a problem in a book a month or two before and never seen it in 3D. It wasn't the exact same position as in the book but I spotted the analogy and confirmed by calculation that the tactic was on. I think some of the more criminally bad errors I have omitted from my endgames in last 2 season, have come as a result of reading (in 2D) key chapters of Silman's endgame course and practicing one or two of them with Herr Dr Fritz and with chessvideos.tv's endgame simulator.

Top cricket players practice with cricket machines which bowl balls automatically.
Golfers will practice their swing without balls ( Wink

) to perfect their technique.
Footballers will shoot penalties into empty nets or free kicks over a wall of cardboard defenders etc etc
Snooker players will do drills which do not mirror actual positions on the table.

The key is "deliberate practice" and I would argue sometimes the silicon monster can be a friend if used judiciously to increase the amount of deliberate practice per unit time. But I accept sometimes that deliberate practice should involve trying to recreate the game situation as closely as possible (a method Botvinnik was very big on).

I think there are lots of good things happening with juniors but the "decline" in chess in Scotland (e.g. no players under X years old in Olympiad team) probably has more to do with cultural influences (including X box, Playstation, Blueray, DVD, High Def, Sky+, etc etc etc) than the misuse of PC based chess products.

The nub of the matter is;
1. Does Geoff just not like training using a PC?
2. Are these errors cited in Chandler Cornered the direct result of PC being misused for chess training? or is there a bit of "cause jumping" going on.
3. Are the errors a result of other factors? (e.g. players not analysing/annotating their own games or reviewing them with a coach and working out how to address recurring weaknesses)

Its a good debate.

Paul

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject:

Hi Paul.

I'm not up for telling the coaches how to go about what they doing
when they have them in front of them. They are doing a fine job.

Some of the blunders were made are after reasonable openings
and from some of the most perfect pawn structures I have seen. Confused

But these players need to spend some time on their own looking
at chess and solving problems.
They have to knock themselves back into shape.

We can give them (and any adult who wishes to improve) all the help
we can.

But they must dedicate some home study time to combinations.

They cannot rely on these 'blue moon' training sessions and they
have to turn off their computers.

And Now Onto You.

Don't quote me combinations you played v a junior player.

At the moment our juniors are sitting there smiling like a born again
Christians letting anybody who can play a two move trick open them up.

( Wink

Come on you lot sort yourselves out).

Also you mention a combination you played.

Show me the postion. What was the book? Show me the trick.

To people who tell they have improved using using a box I always
reply the same.

"Think how much better you would be if you spent that time studying
chess instead of looking at graphics."

A few weeks later I usually see their name on the wrong side of
combo on Chandler Cornered.

All these references to other sports are pointless.
Chess is Chess there is nothing like it.

We can stop this decline in Adult Chess only by ensuring that the
game has a future. There are some bright youngsters doing some
good things including one wee lad who has enormous talent.

(I really hope somebody has not got this wee lad looking at box junk
I saw his games from the Youth event. I hope the score sheet was wrong!)

This is a slip up. It can be corrected, But they must be prepared to
invest so some of their own time.

Remember I came on questioning the training methods that were being
suggested. I want the kids to take some responsilbilty themselves.

After all it will be their games and grades that will be affected.

GN · King Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 415

My theory is it's not so much about Fritz but more about the internet. The kids are playing OTB chess like it's a 3 minute internet blitz game and - guess what - they miss the tactics. SLOW DOWN! (btw - That Bg5 one was definitely not easy)

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:08 am Post subject:

It was not obvious but it was there.

I had chopped and changed that Corner quite a bit before I
posted it and even ran it past Keith before posting.
(something I don't think I ever done before).

Don't want to undermine their confidence but I don't
want to pat them on the head either.
Shake them up a bit - let them know that someone is interested
(AND WATCHING).

So there are a few diagrams missing. I left that one in on purpose
'cos it's a goody. I left out a few more horrors.
Missing getting mated etc.

From the scores I managed to obtain.

Ian scored ½ point from 4 Whites.
He was losing in that one draw but his opponent bottled it and
accepted a pathetic perpetual.

In all Whites he played v a Black fianchetto.
He appeared not to have a clue have to open it.
The posted example was as close as he came.
He then fluffed it and lost badly.

So there is his work plan.

Computer off. Bedroom light on.

Games and combinations v Black fianchettoes.
(Danny Rocks could give him a few lessons in this - he knows what to do.)

He won't miss another chance like that again.

And (IMO) he wants to get rid of that opening. The London System.

It's an old man's opening. (for beating weak adults - Christ I can beat
weak adults - how about beating some good juniors?)

He wants some bite with the White bits so he can set his opponents
some problems. Not hope they make problems for themselves.

MDuke · Rook Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 79

Tactics and combinations are not the same thing.

Tactics are pattern recognition and can easily be developed using a program such as CT-Art. For developing your pattern recognition quantity > quality. It's more important to work through a large amount of fairly simple problems than it is wasting time setting up a board.

Combinations rely on calculation, which is a different skill. In this respect I wouldn't argue against setting up a board since the problem should set a real challenge (20 mins+ to solve). However, I think the mistakes made in those games would have been avoided by better tactical ability.

Online blitz can hurt, but there are benefits. I played a 2650+ GM this morning at 5/0, I don't get to play people like that OTB.

Graeme Forbes · Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:57 am Post subject:

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:17 pm Post subject:

I've been waiting for this to appear.

"Tactics are pattern recognition and can easily be developed using a
program such as CT-Art. For developing your pattern recognition quantity "

Complete and Utter Nonsense.

Yes for recognising patterns on a monitor.

If you study chess through a monitor your OTB play will suffer.
A complete waste of time.

So you have come on here telling us you played a GM at 5/0 chess
and mouse clicking through 20 easy tactical problems is the only way
that lad wil find and have the confidence to play moves like Bg5.

And then we are told the difference between Tactics & Combinations.

Why?

Have I said anywhere that T & C stands for tactics and combinations?

NO.

But you have decided that what T & C stands and showed us the way.

Why not:

Tricks & Cheapo's
Trust & Confidence
Tutankhmen & Cleopartra

A computer addict will jump to conclussions that have a nice solution.

"My tactics are weak I will now solve 20 easy problems on CT -ART."

(The CT in CT-ART = Crap Training).

How do you know who you played on line?
It might be some 1400 player using Fritz claiming to a GM.

You can never say with a 100% certainty that you ever played so and so
GM online. Who saw you? How do you know it was him?

"His profile said he was a GM."

(that's another computer addict's trait - gullibility.)

Do this:

Play a 5/0 game on your favourite website.

After the game re-create the game you just played on a full sized set.

(you will find your full sized set under your bed in a shoe box).

Then you will see proof that what you do and learn on the monitor does
not cross over into the Real World.

You will do it on a monitor OK.
But on a real set your brain is thinking.

"What is this - I've not seen this before"

Paul Denham · Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:25 pm Post subject:

Geoff

Happy to send you on the tactic when I get a chance. Though you start off by saying "Don't quote me combinations you played v a junior player. " So I'm a little unclear there.
Confused

" How can you be expected to reproduce an idea over the board
if you have never seen the idea over the board. "

I think if we did a poll answering yes or no to the following question...

"Have you ever reproduced an idea over the board in a 3D game against a human, for which you have only seen the idea in 2D (e.g. book, DVD, via a PC or similar computerised tool)?"
.....there would be quite a few answering yes

The eye movements players make when choosing a move on the screen are different but not all that different from those they need to make to "see" something over the board up/down side to side diagonally up diagonally down etc.

Plus if memory serves me right have you not posted something on a forum elsewhere where you advocate going through certain games in a manner similar to the following;
- play through moves 1-10 to get the key ideas and themes
- go back to start and now play moves 1-20
etc etc.
I don't recall seeing anywhere on that a health in big bold 2D letters that says words to the effect of " this technique will only work if you play it out in 3D"
As a minimum it seemed to me as if people were using the 2D medium (the video clips of a 2D board) and then feeding back positively that they felt it was an effective improvement technique.
If it does, I will stand corrected.

Do you think Kasparov (in past when he was active) or Carlsen or Anand or any of these guys when preparing for opponents take their PC's to get a game score and then manually move all the pieces? I bet they don't and from all that is written about IM & GM preparation I think its pretty clear a large number of players prepare (with some success) using laptop's and 2D media.

There is a place for both 2D media and 3D looking at a position and trying to find the next move/best move with a practice board.

"If you study chess through a monitor your OTB play will suffer.
A complete waste of time. "

If your quote above relates to sole study through a monitor and no other media I would agree that OTB returns will not be as great as they could be.

To suggest any chess study via a monitor is "a complete waste of time" is , in my opinion a very unhelpful suggestion to many junior players and many adult players seeking improvement.

Paul

AMcHarg · Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject:

Using a computer to help training isn't a waste of time. It can and should be used as a learning tool alongside studying a board. This, in my personal experience, is the best way to learn although that may vary from person to person. Visualisation is only a part of Chess.

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:35 pm Post subject:

Hi.

Kaspaorv and all the other players you mentioned are already good
players. They use the box as a tool not as a learning quick fix crutch.

You know how I stand on this subject.

No matter how many excuses and examples you offer I will not budge.

You are not arguing with me you are aguing with every good chess player
before Kasparov.

These players produced some of the most beautiful games of chess
ever seen. Not one NOT ONE picked up anything from a
computer.

You don't need a computer to become a good chess player, these
players have proved that.

It is 100 % absolute proof.

All I can see is the acknowledged decline in chess and the rise
in weaker players using computers.

I don't think this is a coincidence. I think this is the cause.

A rise in box use coupled with the decline in chess ability.
The evidence is there.

Talent will out but the rest will stay in the holes they digging themselves into.

Enjoy Your Chess.

AMcHarg · Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject: