The United States Chess Federation

Good article. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Others could probably learn from writing an article of their own.

Russell Miller, Camas WA

Excellent advice all around.

I'd been hoping to get a catalog of somewhat similar thoughts published, having recently achieved a similar milestone (lifetime rating peak) at a point in my career that in traditional news terms (back in the good old days when "news" meant something unusual, aka "when a man bites a dog") would merit far greater attention (I'm in my mid-50s). But I made the mistake of aiming for the printed Chess Life, whose editor has been a good audience for me but which is on its way out, rather than pitching the idea to CL Online.

To continue my improvement, I will even try to incorporate some ideas from Evan's piece that hadn't already entered into my thinking, or that I've had trouble implementing. For instance, "In fast time controls, play more intuitively," is a thought I have had, but find very hard to put into practice; perhaps "paralaysis by analysis" (as they say in finance) is just part of my nature.

The piece also reinforces points I've made in debates both in Forums threads (I argued it's always counterproductive for a lower-rated player, even if hundreds of points lower rated, to set their objective at 1/2 point from move 1 and maintain it there throughout the game), and on Vicary's blog (I argued that concentrating on repetitive puzzle solving a la de la Maza isn't the way for anyone to make Master).

Amen, brother! Not only good advice all around, but funny, and some nice games, too.

I like the part about "Investigate lots of different openings." I do this a lot, even though I can't put my finger on why. I mean, why should I play over all these weird Sveshnikov games by top-100-rated GM's, when I don't play either side? But instinct tells me that somehow, I'm gaining valuable knowledge.

I also like the part about analyzing your own games. This is so utterly amazing whenever you can do it. I just can't believe the things I find that I and my opponents missed over the board.

Here's another thing that I realized I would have to do, sometime back when I was about 2100, or whenever: I realized I would have to learn some mainstream openings, and make them my main variations, and (sigh) save my pet offbeat openings for special occasions. Not all at once, because, um, I have a day job, but eventually, it has to happen. Especially with White, you eventually just stall unless you play aggressively, but if you play aggressively, there you are, deep in book.

Thanks for a fun read!
Bruce

I have often told aspiring players that the toughest points you will ever earn are to go from 2100 to 2200. The transition requires not just chess knowledge or ability to calculate, but a change in one's approach to the idea of competition. They are not just rating points, they are character points. You have to change your ego, become tougher, ruthlessly objective with yourself, and learn what it means to win and lose.
One thing I noticed over the years was that Class A's and Experts always were way too happy about winning, about making fun of their opponent's, and rubbing it in. The masters, however, would always be quieter, more forgiving of their opponents mistakes, and were more interested in the truth of the position rather than the simple 1's and 0's. Every game, in fact every moment was, training for future battles. They learned not to crack when the physical and emotional tension ran high in their games. And when they lost, there were fewer excuses. Sure, the games were painful. But woe betide the player who chortled with glee over winning a game from them. You could expect a blood match next time. I also noticed that the masters were more respectful of their opponents than A's and experts were of their lower rated foes.
You really do not know how hard it is to reach master level until you have done it, and harder still to reach the life master (300+ games over 2200). We old life masters are usually on our floor rating, but like old lions, we can still bite.

We old life masters are usually on our floor rating, but like old lions, we can still bite.

Speak for yourself, please. As valid excuses for a master being on their floor (or even having one at all), I'll accept severe chronic health issues, REALLY advanced age (I'm talking Arthur Bisguier here - not your run-of-mill 60- or 70-year old. Korchnoi is 78 and still plays near-2600 level chess consistently, and that's FIDE 2600 not USCF 2600), or having a financially successful chess career that entails regular duties other than playing (Heisman, Pandolfini, Weeramantry, maybe even Hanken).

For the others, I'm forced to conclude the main reason is having lost their "fire in the belly" - if indeed they ever had it. That's a big part of the reason why I refused the LM title, and insisted on deleting it (with its insulting rating floor) from my records within hours after being told I'd qualified. One outcome: rather than hugging some artificial floor, I'm pushing against my ceiling (highest lifetime rating).

Ever notice that some posters will take one little line out of context, ignore the meaning of the rest of posted item, and get bent our of shape?
jonnybear, if you did not want an LM title, that is your privilege. There area lot of reasons why people may be on their floor ratings, but if they play frequently, then it is not because of a lack of "fire in the belly."
I'm sure that a few players would like to drop under 2200, or whatever their floor is, in order to "sandbag," a practice that is more common to the east coast than in other parts of the country. I am glad to see that you do not and are striving to be your best. My point of the last line, intended to be funny and poignant, is that older masters are usually on or near their floor ratings, but they still love the game and can still be dangerous. Young players can ignore that at their peril. I am sure that you like to take a few swat at the cubs who take you lightly, armed as they are with the latest Chessbase data. Go show them that you are not ready to leave the field of battle.

Ever notice that some posters will take one little line out of context, ignore the meaning of the rest of posted item, and get bent our of shape?

Actually, I was greatly impressed with the rest of your post, which was full of valuable advice and insight. I should have mentioned that earlier, so that my objection to the final line wouldn't have come across as an attack.

Perennial: 1. lasting for an indefinitely long time; enduring: her perennial beauty.


Given the age of the player, I hardly think perennial is an appropriate adjective. Had Mr Rosenberg recently celebrated as member of AARP, this would be a story.

As it stands now, it is merely pablum.


~ Richard DeCredico
Longterm Fishteen-Hundred.

Evan, many years ago I commented to Johnathan Tisdall (Syracuse native) that good play does not really seem to happen until master strength and he agreed. As a lowly B player I recently found myself stuck and no hope of advancing until I could drop my Basman addiction. Some statistical analysis of my results of 10 plus years and 20 before that in other unusual openings I realized I was back to "Go", do not collect $200. I went back to my beginning to Capa, and after a year of Soltis, Dunne, Evans, Silman and several opening books I am just starting to enjoy chess again. "Wow, d4 is a good opening move!" At this point in time openings still elude me. At this point I seem to win the openings, even though I am way out of the book but get side tracked in the middle game. My conclusion is a little different than yours (same direction though) is that to advance, find the weak points in your play (you noted some important ones) and develop strategies to fix the holes. The holes can be a mix of endings, middle game, just plain prone to blunders, ... but what ever the problem through game examination, time control problems, whatever the ailment, develop a plan and systematically improve the weaknesses to increase the sought after results. Good players make errors in all phases of the game, but they make far fewer and their results show it. Knowledge of chess is only one area that needs strength. The determination and skill to work towards a win or to press a draw into a win as you noted is what makes a master a master.

Evan,
This is a fine and thoughtful article. Your style is clear and a bit lite, the perfect balance. You picked some engageing games against very good players and lucidly explained your thought processes. I enjoyed it very much and you should write more. You are one of a whole generation of strong young players who represent, not just the future of American chess, but the future of American chess journalism.
I have a quibble of some note with "johnnybear". The printed Chess Life is NOT "on its way out"! This bit of conventional "wisdom", repeated enough, leads folks to accept as "truth", quite a lot of nonsense!
Evan, one interesting note here is that your article has drawn more comments, 10 now, than any CLOL piece I can recall. Keep up the good work.
Jerry Hanken, "Old life Master, usually on his floor", and President of Chess Journalists of America.
Say "hi" to me at the next big tournament which we both attend, probebly Foxwoods. and please drop me a line at jerryhanken@aol.com. Jerry

Evan,
This is a fine and thoughtful article. Your style is clear and a bit lite, the perfect balance. You picked some engageing games against very good players and lucidly explained your thought processes. I enjoyed it very much and you should write more. You are one of a whole generation of strong young players who represent, not just the future of American chess, but the future of American chess journalism.
I have a quibble of some note with "johnnybear". The printed Chess Life is NOT "on its way out"! This bit of conventional "wisdom", repeated enough, leads folks to accept as "truth", quite a lot of nonsense!
Evan, one interesting note here is that your article has drawn more comments, 10 now, than any CLOL piece I can recall. Keep up the good work.
Jerry Hanken, "Old life Master, usually on his floor", and President of Chess Journalists of America.
Say "hi" to me at the next big tournament which we both attend, probebly Foxwoods. and please drop me a line at jerryhanken@aol.com. Jerry

Evan,
This is a fine and thoughtful article. Your style is clear and a bit lite, the perfect balance. You picked some engageing games against very good players and lucidly explained your thought processes. I enjoyed it very much and you should write more. You are one of a whole generation of strong young players who represent, not just the future of American chess, but the future of American chess journalism.
I have a quibble of some note with "johnnybear". The printed Chess Life is NOT "on its way out"! This bit of conventional "wisdom", repeated enough, leads folks to accept as "truth", quite a lot of nonsense!
Evan, one interesting note here is that your article has drawn more comments, 10 now, than any CLOL piece I can recall. Keep up the good work.
Jerry Hanken, "Old life Master, usually on his floor", and President of Chess Journalists of America.
Say "hi" to me at the next big tournament which we both attend, probebly Foxwoods. and please drop me a line at jerryhanken@aol.com. Jerry

My post appears 3 times. I am sorry as I kept getting a funny message that I should review it as there were new posts! I kept trying to tell the system that it was OK to submit. I am still trying to master the technology and will ask somebody to take down the extra repeats--as soon as I can find someone who can! As it stands, it just confirms the conventional wisdom that I am an egomanic! Jerry

Evan, one interesting note here is that your article has drawn more comments, 10 now, than any CLOL piece I can recall.

It's easy to see how.