Freezing your chessboard.

November 25, 2011 by mccreadyandchess

Find a player you like to study, play through one of their games until you find a position of interest, then pick up your board and put it in the freezer. Take it out an hour later, set it down on a table and whilst the frost melts, take a good look at the features of the position from both sides without worrying about whose move it is or finding the best move (ensure that frozen peas haven’t found their way onto the board and are doubling up as pawns).

According to Kasparov techniques which give us a broader understanding of positional elements rather than an intuitive grasp of the best move are important for our development. He claims that liberating ourselves from the anxiety of ‘the move’ is a useful technique which can deepen our understanding of chess. He argues that only with a deliberate analysis, can we find the core of a position. Let’s have a quick look at an instructive game position:

Marshall – Nimzowitsch New York 1927

If we were to encounter such a position whilst looking for the best move, we might consider moves such as Re1 for white, trying to capitalize on the open file, or as black then perhaps a kingside pawn storm with g5 and h5 to come but it is only a deeper understanding of the importance of the pawn structures that offers the route to victory for black here. In the game itself, Nimzowitsch understood that white’s doubled pawns must be blockaded with a knight on c4, he knew he would be able to exploit the weaknesses in white’s queenside and win the endgame accordingly if he could do so. Such strategies are less likely to be appreciated by players intent on finding the best move, and more likely to be overlooked entirely.

Black is about to gain a winning advantage with Na2

So the next time you find an interesting game, stop searching for the best move and have a deeper look at the positional factors involved. Look at the pawns, the pieces, king safety and so on. Try to decide which position you prefer and why. Let’s look at a more contemporary position. Forget about who’s move it is, which side stands better and why? What positional factors are most significant and why? What are the strengths and weaknesses of white and black’s respective position? I’m not going to state the result of the game this time, as that would be counterpart to my purpose.

Ivanchuk – Anand Linares 1992

Enjoy.

 

Posted in Life beyond the chess board | Leave a Comment »

Falsification and chess

November 22, 2011 by mccreadyandchess

I’m always on the look out for terminology that has found its way from philosophy into chess, and was very pleased to see the word ‘falsification’ appear in a chess book I recently browsed. Admittedly, I cannot -at the time of writing- locate the source, however, this is inconsequential. I read broadly in chess and always return to the books I have in my growing personal collection. Once found, I will cite the source, however, in the meantime I shall begin with a brief historical account of the term, which will serve the dual purpose of a brief trip down memory lane to heady, undergraduate days too.

Firstly, what is falsification in the context of philosophy? The phrase itself was first coined by Karl Popper, who once upon a time objected to the rise of what he called pseudo-science (we now call this social science). His point was that in order for a theory to gain credibility by being called ‘scientific’, it must be possible to falsify it. For example, his compatriot Freud argued for psychoanalysis, making such claims that a person’s behaviour can be influenced by experiences lying within their subconscious. Popper argued that such theories cannot be scientific because they cannot be verified/falsified -by falsify, he means show that something is wrong/incorrect. How, for example, can the content of a person’s subconscious be examined physically and objectively and thus attributed as the cause of something? It’s simply not possible. At best Freud’s assertions were interpretations of behaviour, though if you read his Lectures on Psychoanalysis you’ll find that many of his patients actually told him what they thought was the cause of their behaviour, and not vice-versa. If Popper were still alive today, he would almost certainly be aghast at the commercially motivated, blurred boundaries between the social -pseudo- sciences and the more traditional sciences that pervade our modern age. TV commercials would probably drive him up the wall!

As a thinking tool, falsification has great potential in chess. Rather than verify or confirm to ourselves why we should play a certain move, instead we should prove to ourselves why it shouldn’t be played. This doesn’t just mean, thinking along the lines of ‘I can play my knight to c4 but not d5 because he can pin it with his rook if I do that’, this this is clearly a rudimentary case of establishing which tactical threats are apparent in a position, but falsification serves a better purpose if applied to the selection of candidate moves.

Black to play, QGD Tartakower line

c5 or c6 or Qd6?

In this position, which can be reached in the QGD, Kramnik is famous for playing c6 whereas Kasparov is known to have played c5 in his second match against Karpov. It is possible that after some home analysis both players rejected Qd6 as a serious candidate move because they thought that d6 is not the correct square for the queen. After white plays Qb3, black would have to spend time guarding against both the possibility of a knight arriving at b5 and/or the longer term plan of castles short, Nd2-Nb3-f3-e4. In such a position, a club player might approach the same position thinking along the lines of Qd6 being strong because it 1) attacks a pawn, 2) develops the queen, 3) clears the back rank, thus preparing the connection of the rooks. The problem with such a thought process is that it only confirms why a move should be played rather than falsified, and thus disregarded. Whether Qd6 is sound or not cannot be established by a process which only confirms our initial reasons for playing a move, therefore, the true value in falsification lies in its ability to improve our decision making process and thus enable us to select better moves. If we interpret chess as a struggle against error, then falsifying the value we attach to candidate moves is a powerful tool indeed.

One last thing, what do we do if a move cannot be falsified? (By this I mean we cannot fault it). Then we must play it! In the position above, I would play c6,with a5 and Nd7 to come.

MJM

Posted in Life beyond the chess board | Leave a Comment »

Chess and Relocation

November 14, 2011 by mccreadyandchess

And so, one week from today me enter um iron bird once more in um positional exchange sacrifice, swapping water for sand. Um what am I talking about, you might ask? After spending almost a year in Thailand, I will be heading to Oman for approximately 6 months. It’s a work related move, the flood in Bangkok practically eliminating all chances of finding decent work as everything has closed down for the time being. It’s a big change and one that has been forced upon me but I’d much rather be working and earning a decent wage than sitting around in a flooded apartment getting frustrated with everything. I have to say that the lack of action by the Thai government has left me feeling less than impressed. I will be living in Ibri, which is real desert. It’s a very quiet place. I have been through it once before and know there’s not too much going on there.

Oman, is it a chess playing nation -yes and no. A friend tells me that it is one of the very few Arab nations without a federation. It doesn’t appear of the F.I.D.E website and after several attempts to google chess and Oman, I have come up with nothing. I’m not concerned about this because chess is probably played on a street level, perhaps without proper tournaments. Even if that weren’t true I still don’t mind because I am happy to study the game alone. I should add that I have recently stopped playing on-line chess as I find the effects of playing constantly to be stifling. I am rapidly finding John Watson’s books to be a source of great inspiration and will be taking them with me. Having a very healthy income will also allow me to improve my software collection too. Furthermore, though the chess scene in Thailand is adequate enough for someone of my level, it is a little small, and playing the same players every tournament has taken the edge of my play somewhat. My only real concern is that having taken a 13 year break from the game, I still don’t have the experience I need. Because of this I will look into fitting in a tournament or two in the region. Dubai isn’t far away and there’s usually a lot going on there. Whilst in Qatar last year, I almost went to Armenia, just to see what it’s like. I will have that opportunity again and will take it this time if I can. Armenia is just north of Iran, and Iran is just across the water from me.

A change is as good as a rest as they say. I hope to return to Thailand theoretically stronger and be able to push my rating towards 1900, where it should be.

Oman, very near to where I will be living.

Mark.

Posted in Life beyond the chess board | Leave a Comment »

Chess and Force majeure

November 8, 2011 by mccreadyandchess

Greetings from a flooded Bangkok. Cut off from most of the city unless I am prepared to wade through toxic, crocodile invested gunk for hours, whilst having to inure myself to various forms of mockery from the locals; a life of seclusion, of downloading, uploading, documentary watching -whilst cooking noodles I might add- and of course, studying chess have been inflicted upon me.

It’s actually a great opportunity to catch up on literature that has been put aside. There are now 35 books that I have in my personal collection, about 10 of which I have already read. I’m going to study Yuri Avebakh’s Comprehensive Chess Endings and focus on the Queen’s Indian Defence by Soltis and Keene. I also plan to look at Nigel Davies’s The Power Chess Programme and Basman’s St. George’s Defence. Having performed poorly over the board recently, I don’t miss playing with friends, especially since I am not a fan of blitz. Instead I intend to use this solitude to refocus, to re-examine where I have recently gone wrong. Furthermore, I am still broadening my opening repertoire so that when I come to focus on study of the middle-game, I will have a better idea of which positions and games I should focus on. Studying the middle-game is much harder than it appears. I’m trying to tailor my study of the middle-game so that it is inclusive of the positional and tactical elements I am most likely to encounter. Take for example, Andrew Soltis’s book Pawn Structure chess. I decided not to read it all because 1) I don’t play d4, 2) I don’t play the Kings Indian Defence. Anyway, back to the chess board.

More later.

A few days in…

I managed to get hold of John Watson’s Chess Strategy in Action and am enjoying it very much. I really enjoy books that offer a historical perspective, and this one’s no different. Watson appears to be more educated and a better writer than your average GM, so its a good read. On another positive note, the water has gone down about 1 foot.

A few more days in…

Excuse my French but the flood is really beginning to pee me off. I’ve put on almost half a stone now through having to sit inside all the time. As wonderful as chess is, I doubt whether it can save my sanity if this goes on for much longer. The word on the river street is that it will take another two months for everything to get back to normal. Great. On the chess front. Watson has taken over. I’m enjoying his book greatly, particularly his exposition on The Tartakower line in the QGD. He gives some instructive games, including some amazing stuff by Nigel Short.

 

Posted in Life beyond the chess board | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

Chess and Photography.

November 1, 2011 by mccreadyandchess

As an experienced and usually enthusiastic photographer, I think I must have had around 30 people try to push me into professional photography over the years, some of whom were within the field itself. Most people are unaware that it is actually very difficult to make a living out of photography these days -being freelance is forced upon you unless you have influential friends. They also don’t realize that it is actually a mechanical and unsatisfying job, often with long hours and lots of unpaid travel time. Out of all the people I have met and worked with in photography, I still haven’t met one person that enjoys it. This includes those who ‘allegedly’ teach it. The only people who enjoy photography are those sensible enough to keep it as a hobby, people like myself.

Given that I have never taken photography too seriously, like many amateurs/hobbyists/enthusiasts, I have strengths and weaknesses. Photographing a human subject has always been my biggest weakness, mainly because being a shy person myself, overcoming shyness with the camera is harder for me than most, and also because I when I photograph a person, I haven’t really known what I should be looking for. Fortunately chess has changed all that, it has provided me with a solid platform to work from because most people are often too engrossed in their game to notice you, which means that you often get a more natural pose (as photographers will tell you, posing itself is an art-form), and also there is a often a large number of subjects to chose from at any given time. I have concluded that chess is a good medium to improve your skills of photographing people. In addition, I had to return to the fundamentals and approach the whole area by asking what does a picture of someone playing chess comprise?

A self-portrait by Van Gogh. What does it express?

An instructive way to think of a picture of someone playing chess is to think of it as a portrait, this needs a little explanation. Firstly what is a portrait? A portrait is a concept which is not as easily explained as you might think. To begin we must transcend photography, since it cannot tell us much about what a portrait is. We must go back in time to before photography existed, to the world of art. Artists, especially those who specialized in portraiture, were much better at showing us what a portrait is about. Traditionally, portraits have had a living being as a subject, which in turn has mental states. In sum, then, portraits involve people -we couldn’t, for example, argue that an inanimate object qualifies for the subject of a portrait. The subject of the portrait should have a pose of some kind. An effective portrait should give us an insight into human nature by revealing the inner states of its subject in some way. With this in mind, we can see how chess is, potentially, a good medium for portraiture. Even though, strictly speaking, chess players are engaged in chess, the activity itself does not compromise the basic requirements for a portrait, using the definition posted. One last point before we move on, before photography came along, patience was a pre-requisite of both having and painting someone’s portrait. In our ephemeral embrace of digitalisation, patience plays no part. This is something that those of us wanting to photograph chess players must re-examine. Chess does not lend itself to self-expression. Often a chess player will be motionless and expressionless, to get the kind of shot you want, you must factor this into your photo shoot. Here’s a few other pointers that should improve your chess photography overall. These ideas should be understood as pointers towards a more aesthetic appreciation of photography rather than a mechanised one. They are geared towards appreciation of the process of photographing rather than the process of improvement, though as it already has and will again be suggested, enjoyment and improvement are correlated in photography.

A worthy opponent who took me to the endgame.

A worthy opponent who took me to the endgame.

Your primary subject will usually be a person NOT chess itself. Since your subject is a person, you must concentrate on how they express themselves. Usually, this occurs through facial expressions, posture, or mannerisms -by this I mean the way someone might write the moves down or press the clock. You should know before you shoot what you want to capture. You should look for the way your subject expresses him/herself, as it will always be particular to them. One crucial point that less experienced photographers often overlook is, if you are taking a picture of someone’s face, you should photograph from eye level or below. Of course all rules have exceptions, but generally speaking, shooting from a standing viewpoint doesn’t allow you to see the subjects face wholly, especially if they are resting their head in their hands or leaning over. This means you will have to crouch down and get in someone’s eye line. Don’t worry about being a source of distraction too much. You will be one but chess players are used to such things and can easily ignore it. This brings me onto those who can’t/don’t.

Tip 2 Stealth captures what is natural.

Generally speaking, most people like to have their photograph taken. The fact that they are playing a game of competitive chess does not always alter that fact, however, posing is an art-form that is lost on the vast majority. If instead you’re looking for a natural pose, the best way to move around a playing hall is, then, slowly and quietly. Try not to engage eye contact with players at any point as this can send signals that you intend to photograph them and can thus negatively affect the result of your picture. Why should you move around the playing hall slowly? Well, like in chess, patience is a great virtue in photography too. If you find a good spot, don’t be afraid to claim it as your own for a short while. Your subject may be deep in thought, there may be nothing interesting or no action to capture but this will only be temporal.

Tip 3 Some phases of play offer better photographic opportunities than others.

There are phases of the game which are incredibly valuable for photographers because they contain more action and response. The start of play and time trouble being the most significant. The end of a game, by this I mean after play has finished, should not be overlooked also.

At the beginning of a game, players sometimes behave slightly differently than during the game itself. They may often express surprise or horror at their opponents choice of opening (having played 1 f4 for a few years in the past, I think I am qualified enough to speak about that). They may have certain habits which they only perform at the beginning of a game, such as aligning/fixing the pieces within their squares, or examining the clock.

Time trouble speaks for itself. We’ve all been there enough times. We know how we feel inside and act accordingly. Everything can be won or lost quickly at such times, so it is then when we are at our most emotive. The range of emotions on offer for the photographer is so great, that photographing players in time trouble should be a main inclusion of every photo shoot, perhaps THE main inclusion. You should remember that chess itself does not tolerate much self-expression, it is a game of composure and concentration, so you should target the phases of the game where play becomes looser. Also, time trouble can lead to dispute or intervention by an arbiter, once again broadening the range of emotions on show. However, it should be pointed out that it is advisable to keep your distance if you can. If you have a telephoto, this is the time to use it. The last thing someone desperately trying to save their position wants is someone trying to take clever pictures of them.

At the end of the game, players often carry the result of their game in their faces. There are also formalities which are interesting to observe and photograph, such as the the signing of score sheets and leasing with an arbiter. Some players chose not to hang around after a game has ended, offering few if any opportunities to catch the final moments of play. When a player has just left the table and turned away from his/her opponent, you should try to photograph them, as this is the moment where courtesy gives way to satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

Tip 4 Keep chess out of some pictures.

Away from the board there are so many things to photograph that it would be pointless to try and include them all. Instead, it is better to bear in mind some crucial ones. Firstly, some players like to go for a walk or socialize between moves, this often present good opportunities for a photographer. Secondly, tournament organizers and officials have jobs that are unseen by the majority of players and spectators. Thirdly, all locations contain features that are unique to them, such features are often used to identify a certain tournament and are thus important. Lastly, incorporate external factors into your photographs. That could be nothing more than including spectators around a particular board or perhaps the rain outside the hall. You might want to photograph other photographers going about their business or include items and/or rooms outside the main playing hall.

Tip 5 Study composition; always aim for variety.

In spite of all the crumby adverts you see on tv nowadays, photography isn’t about point and click. You must bear composition in mind at all times. What does this mean? Well there are certain rules to composition which are worth looking at, such as the ‘rule of thirds’, which I don’t have time to go into now, though I do advise that you look at them at leisure on the net. Just google the aforementioned phrase and you’ll get lots of stuff come up. Traditionally in portraiture subjects are in the centre of the frame, however, in chess this need not be so. More often than not you will want to include the board too. This often means that the subject gets pushed to the side of the shot. Pictures that focus solely on a subject and do not include the board can and often do work very well, but it must be remembered that these should not predominate your shoot that day. Chess players need a frame of reference -chess! Instead, we should aim to include the focus of attention when we can, as this is what the subject is pointing towards, and so the subject as a whole should be seen as a person shown to be engaged in chess, and not just a person.

Within any playing hall there will be rows of players. Lines are very important for good composition. Strong, diagonal lines often work well. What do I mean by this? Well, rather than shoot from directly behind a row of players, move aside as much as you can so that more faces appear in the shot, rather than the back of heads. The line of players will move diagonally across your image when you do this, like in the image below.

Digital photography allows us to shoot hundreds of pictures at a time -and so we should. Vary your shots as much as you can. Take pictures of individual players, players with their opponents, rows of players, sections of players, players sitting, standing, eating, drinking, chatting. Photograph from different angles, try to be as free as you can in what you do. Not only are you more likely to get better results, you’ll probably enjoy the experience more.

IMG_6157

Tip 6 Improve your editing skils.

Photography isn’t just about taking pictures nowadays. The industry has been revolutionized by the advent of digitalization. Bundled in with this change is the onus on editing and processing skills. It is now possible to transform an ordinary picture into an outstanding one by picking up a few skills. All camera manufacturers provide good software when you buy a camera, its worth spending a bit of time playing with it, and seeing what it does. The results can be surprising and effective. As great as digital cameras are, they still have issues regarding metering and exposure. You’ll often find that a few tweaks here and there can work wonders.

IMG_6167

Anyway, that’s all from me. Hope it helps.

Oh, one last thing. If you enjoy photography and want to improve your pictures, consider purchasing one of Tom Ang’s books. Don’t buy the over-priced magazines you see for sale. Just buy Tom Ang.

http://www.tomang.com/

Mark.J.McCready

Posted in Life beyond the chess board | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

Fischer and Documentaries.

November 1, 2011 by mccreadyandchess

With Carlsen yet to become world champion, Fischer is still the only role-model for chess that the west has produced in modern times. For this and other reasons, he is still an attraction for film and documentary makers around the world. The latest one to come out is  ‘Bobby Fisher against the World’.

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1083808793/

So what’s it like? Well, not too bad though there are one or two serious question marks concerning its approach. I used to think that there’s no such thing as a bad documentary on chess -using the maxim there’s no such thing as bad publicity as my rationale- but that was before I saw ‘My Brilliant Brain’, the woeful account of Susan Polgar’s rise in chess. Fortunately our blushes were spared this time; the difficulty with our latest chess-doc, though, lies in establishing not its success in the detail -or lack thereof- but in its approach towards chess.

Bobby Fischer against the World is a documentary for non-chess players not chess players, the reason being that it concentrates on his life rather his chess. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as lives/stories can be retold interestingly if the documentary maker is knowledgeable enough, but the problem is that Fischer warns against trying to separate himself from chess early on in the doc, so we are left to wonder why the director has ignored such an important caveat.

As I watched it, I began to wonder whether the director actually knew anything about chess at all and perhaps decided it was best to avoid it as much as possible rather than explore our beautiful game. There are parts of the documentary which are directionless and unresolved, for example, the celebrated match of 72 in Iceland, which though featured, is glossed over. Though during the coverage of the match it does veer towards analysis in one or two places, annoyingly, it then quickly pulls away, making it impossible to follow; the best example of which being the celebrated blunder in game 1, in which we are offered some quick-fire analysis of one side-line but that’s all. You are left with the feeling that the director feels obliged to head towards something she always wants to pull away from through lack of understanding. If I am right, that is a serious and critical mistake, one which devalues the documentary enormously. This is perhaps shown in the problems Fischer faced, and the presentation of them: we aren’t really shown any of the solutions because for the most part, they can be found manifest within his chess and in his approach to the game itself. Victory in chess and solutions to issues off the board correlate inseparably in Fischer. But his approach to chess is presented anecdotally, we learn that he was besieged by personal problems which haunted him his whole life but we are never really shown how his game evolved through them, which brings us back to Fischer’s caveat. Fischer and chess cannot be separated. I think this story of the unprepared and somewhat forlorn genius doesn’t really wash with someone who became the greatest in history at what he did in his time. Such a sympathetic story would have worked better with someone who tried their hand at chess and failed miserably, since greatness does not beget sympathy. To conclude let us turn to Edward Winter’s on-line Chess Notes:

‘Graced with some exceptionally rich archive material, Liz Garbus’ 2011 documentary film Bobby Fischer Against the World is disgraced with some exceptionally poor interviewees. A particular low point, with some of the talking heads less concerned about being truthful than noticed, is the dense sequence which seizes on the issue of insanity:

Anthony Saidy: ‘Victor Korchnoi claimed to have played a match with a dead man and he even provided the moves.’

Asa Hoffmann: ‘Rubinstein jumped out of the window because the fly was after him.’

Anthony Saidy: ‘Steinitz in late life thought he was playing chess by wireless with God Almighty – and had the better of God Almighty.’

Asa Hoffmann: ‘Carlos Torre took all his clothes off on a bus.’

To highlight only the Steinitz versus God yarn, no scrap of serious substantiation is available. Once again we witness the magnetic pull of malignant anecdotitis. And since the theme is insanity, an uncomfortable question arises: can such groundless public denigration of Steinitz and others be considered the conduct of a rational human being?’

Posted in Documentaries | Leave a Comment »

Chess and Philosophy

September 13, 2011 by mccreadyandchess

‘Happiness is thought to depend on leisure; for we are busy that we may have leisure, and make war that we may live in peace. (Aristotle,NE,X.1177b4)’

Philosophy, it is often said, is the art of reasoning & analysis. According to Botvinnik, ‘Chess is the art of analysis’. In their long histories there has been relatively little convergence between chess and philosophy, which given the analytical nature of both, is surprising to learn. Over the years, I’ve encountered few players who have studied philosophy at university, often choosing more precise subjects such as mathematics instead. Philosophy is a discipline largely ignored by chess players. With this in mind, what can chess learn from philosophy? I’d like to answer this question not by giving a narrowed descriptive account of both -though I will stay within the confines of canonical philosophy- but by drawing attention to some rather unexpected parallels that occur within the highest echelons of both. I should confirm that when I use the term ‘Philosophy’, I am speaking as a Philosophy Post-grad and am defining it in academic terms, not in the loose, vernacular sense of the word.

In terms of major philosophers using chess illustratively, it is probably Wittgenstein who applied himself most to this task. Both his early and later works contain frequent chess descriptions and analogies. The most famous, perhaps, can be found in his account of language games in the Philosophical Investigations, in which he refers to the interdependence of rules and meanings, explaining that the concept of the king in chess only means something if the rules of the game are understood also. However, Wittgenstein’s references to chess are specific to key ideas in his works, and on the whole, would require a large commitment to grasp well. Such a commitment may work as part of an academic programme, but probably wouldn’t work well as part of a casual dip into a new subject. Aside from the endeavours of the great Austrian, sadly chess appears only sporadically in the literature of the great philosophers. Within analytical philosophy there are plenty who dip into chess for the purpose of analogy but rarely go beyond that.

Okay, what about if we turn things around? Can philosophy teach us anything about chess by virtue of the endeavours of great chess players? Out of the players who dedicated themselves to philosophy, the second world champion, the evergreen Emmanuel Lasker should immediately come to mind. He did manage several publications in Philosophy, having studied it as a young man. The most famous of the aforementioned publications was ‘Kampf’ (struggle), published in 1906, in which echoing Nietzsche somewhat, he attempted to provide a general theory of all competitive activities. Lasker didn’t achieve the same level of success in Philosophy as he did in chess, in fact his publications made almost no impact whatsoever on the academic world of his day.

With both chess and philosophy being unable to offer a figure who has successfully crossed over into the other discipline, how do we proceed? Well, surprisingly, we have to go back in time thousands of years where one philosopher can help us with our understanding of chess. Not because they were a great player but because they would have been a great player, well probably… .

Who am I referring to? Aristotle: who would have been a great chess player, if the Nicomachean Ethics is anything to go by. Those unfamiliar with the text itself, might initially wonder how a work on ethics can have any bearing on, or be a refection of, potential chess prowess. This, however, can be easily explained. Firstly, ethical discussions in classical literature were centred around the individual and how, as individuals, we can make our lives go well rather than take into consideration the interests of others, as now tends to be the case in such literature. The Nicomachean Ethics aims to account for what is conducive for Eudaimonia or individual flourishing: in very simple terms, excellence or personal development. And it is excellence/personal development which we chess players also strive for (albeit for chess-related reasons). Aristotle’s account of how to achieve a life of flourishing incorporates much that has little to do with chess but there are points he makes which correlate, and are in fact, highly instructive. I shall explain one of them.

How to live well, is a central question of the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle points out that living well is not about applying general rules on how to live to our lives, but adapting to the particular circumstances we find ourselves in. Judgements about how to live are only true for the most part, they don’t hold for every individual in every situation. Aristotle claims that being able to liberate ourselves from generalities and judge a course of action on its individual merit or characteristics is a sign of intelligence. Understanding in modern chess rests upon similar principles; being able to evaluate the unique features of a position by going beyond the general principles we have learnt, is a sign of higher-level skill. A grandmaster, for example, can tell when the right time to castle in a game has come much more easily than a club player, who believes that castling should be done as early as possible and is liable to castle before playing more active moves. If Aristotle were a chess player, he would know that unlearning the principle of castling early comes as a consequence of being able to judge a position on its particular merits. Our ability to do that being largely dependent upon the training we have given ourselves. ‘For the things we have to learn before we can do, we learn by doing. (NE, II.1103a33)’ He would approach the game with a practical, engaged mindset rather than a theory-dependent one. With this in mind, Aristotle would fit into the modern game well (and not that of classical chess 100 years ago) because through the advent of digitalization, the modern game has abandoned a rule-based approach in favour of a pragmatic ‘play whatever works’, owing to the dynamic duo of generations of diligent Grandmasters and the more recent processing power of modern computers, which are remarkably adept at transforming anomalies into exceptions, hence drawing into question the rules they adhere to. Let’s turn to one of the forefathers of the modern game, Richard Reti, ‘It is the aim of every modern school not to treat every position according to one general law but according to the principle inherent in the position. An acquaintance with other positions and the rules applicable to the treatment thereof is of great use for the purpose of analysing and obtaining a grasp of the particular position under consideration…the source of the greatest errors is to be found in those moves made merely according to the rule and not based on the individual plan or thought of the player.’ (Watson:Secrets of Grandmaster Play 2003, pg.97)

Another interesting parallel that Aristotle claims is that there is no real value in judging a person’s life until it is over. Just because an individual was successful in the 20’s and 30’s it doesn’t follow that their life was a success. A tragedy late in life can put an entirely different complexion on things. And so too in chess. Take for example Anand’s opening game in the defence of his title against Topalov. In the beginning of the game, everything was going to plan, until moves 25-27, where he forgot how to play the line he had chosen and subsequently lost quickly. Often in chess we must learn to resist the temptation of easing up, thinking that the path forward is a straightforward one. This is particularly true if we are winning. Aristotle would question the validity of evaluating a game in progress, as chess and life both share unknowable futures.

In his ‘Chess for Zebras’ (Gambit 2005) pg 28, Rowson quotes Aristotle under the heading ‘Developing Skill’:

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then is not an act but a habit” Aristotle (source not cited!)

‘…the main skill a chess player needs is skill in making decisions, so that’s what you need to do and do repeatedly. If you want to become a better player, you need better habits, and you cultivate your habits through training. ‘

One last point, if an Aristotelian and a mathematician both picked up chess at the same time, both having no prior knowledge of the game but both falling in love with it immediately, who would be more likely to develop into an expert player? My money is on the Aristotelian for the reason that he would have a deeper appreciation of what is conducive for success.

A recent photo of Aristotle

I am indebted to Nigel Warburton for his enquiry into Aristotle.

Posted in Life beyond the chess board | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

Chess and Thailand

September 6, 2011 by mccreadyandchess

Chess and Thailand are not words that you often see in the same sentence; having become part of the chess scene in Bangkok over the past year, I thought I’d re-address the balance somewhat.

The chess scene in Thailand is primarily found in Bangkok and Pattaya, with the northern city of Chiang Mai bringing up the rear. In Bangkok, a mix of ex-pats and locals meet downtown twice a week (Tuesdays and Fridays). There’s always a blitz tournament to partake in, if blitz is your thing. Numbers are usually around 20 per night. In terms of strength, we range from beginners to casual players to those rated between 2200-2300. Thailand has more than one F.I.D.E International Arbiter, and more often than not one will be present, even for casual play. Pattaya, though considerably smaller than Bangkok, has a chess scene which is not only on a par but arguably stronger than Bangkok’s. A group of 40 dedicated players meet at the Brauhaus Restaurant in central Pattaya on Mondays. It boasts a strong German contingent including more than one titled player, and a keen following.

Tournaments occur frequently in Bangkok, a bi-monthly 9-round swiss for those interested is always on the horizon, there’s also a chess academy for juniors, hosting regular tournaments too. The Thai open, Thailand’s largest tournament, is held in April each year in either Pattaya or Bangkok, and has gained recognition internationally, with top GM’s such as Nigel Short committing themselves to it. Players of all strengths come in their hundreds and often enjoy the experience, pointing out that you can play some great chess in a great location. The national team has its own centre in Bangkok, complete with its own library and latest chess software for enthusiasts.

With all this in mind, and given the fact that F.I.D.E has recently acknowledged Thailand’s ‘Chess in schools’ project, what are we to make of the chess scene in Thailand? Chess-playing visitors to the nation are often quick to point out that a love of board games certainly exists in the streets, since Thai chess (a variant of our beloved game), can be seen being played everywhere in Bangkok by motorbike taxis. They may also wonder whether the casual nature of the play is reflexive of the general attitude that Thai’s have towards life itself, epitomised by the expression คิดมากเกินไปแล้วปวดหัว (think too much get headache) and wonder about the suitability of a serious and often stressful game, such as chess. Unfortunately, such predispositions are epiphenomonal to a broader issue: that Thailand isn’t taken seriously as a chess playing nation, and instead is considered to be something of a backwater in the chess world – its current ranking of 97th in the world, sandwiched between Monaco and Yemen, probably not helping. And though it maybe true that other nations in the region; notably Philippines, Vietnam and India have seen chess flourish in recent years, it is a little unfair to overlook Thailand in the face of their success. Comparatively, Thailand is still lacking in terms of development, but the conditions favourable for progress are evident and much is already in place to facilitate it. All that’s required is for one of the many promising young players from Chiang Mai, Pattaya, or Bangkok to grab the headlines with that first elusive GM title, and the rest will be consigned history.

In the meantime, should you wish to be part of a friendly, enthusiastic, cosmopolitan chess scene, which takes itself seriously though not too seriously, all you need to do is contact me and I might just tell you how to find us… .

Some useful links:

1) The chess in schools project, as recognized by F.I.D.E

http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/5121-qchess-in-schoolsq-in-thailand.html

2) Bangkok Chess website

http://bangkokchess.com

3) List of top Thai players

http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=THA

Posted in Chess in Thailand | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

« Newer Posts