What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

The trouble with experiments gone wrong is that you may not be able to undo the damage so easily, and certainly you have caused a major setback and lost revenue (and, at least temporarily, members of the Federation(s)).
When the need to experiment/try something new has not been clearly established, radical ideas are less attractive since the risk:reward ratio is not so favourable. Wait for FIDE to declare Chess960 to be the new standard due to chess being exhausted, for example, before having just Canada do so. Then the whole world is on the same page.

I was not suggesting Canada make chess960 "the new standard" or even close to it. But chess federations should not be so blind to chess960. There should be chess960 events whenever and wherever there are standard chess events, and let the people decide which they prefer. Standard chess will not disappear! The younger generation, I believe, will eventually for the most part prefer chess960, but they don't get that option right now. What is probably needed is for a much more lucrative sponsorship of a chess960 World Championship.

About the experiment aspect: I did make mention that class prizes could be maintained as they are now, and organizers could approach corporate or private sponsors and offer them the opportunity to sponsor, not the class prizes, but the brilliancy and strategy prizes. First of all, see how the potential sponsors react to this idea. Would Microsoft Canada like to be associated with a nationwide awarding of brilliancy prizes in chess events? What about a major financial company's name associated with Strategy prizes?

This would be the best of all worlds: still reward the class winners, while also rewarding those who do the best job of generating ideas or of formulating long term strategies (which in some cases will also be the class winners). And the sponsors get associated not with just a chess event, but with the very concept of brilliancy or of long term strategy.

If the CFC was competing for customers who could get a better product then this reasoning would be stronger. ... In addition, the CFC is not clearly offering a badly defective product, as I've reasoned above.

I'm reminded of the scenes from Monty Python's movie Life of Brian, where you have the Peoples Front of Judea competing for recruits with the Judean People's Front :). Ok, so the CFC doesn't have a competing CCF, but they are definitely competing for customers, against anything else people could be spending a weekend doing.

If you don't consider the awarding of prizes to the same small group of players week after week, event after event, as a problem (including the problem of having some players sandbag in one event so they can return to a section they can win in a subsequent event), then you are as blind to what constitutes at least one defective part in an overall product as Toyota quality control people were to a defective accelerator mechanism.

All I'm doing is trying to point it out to you. Maybe you are right and there is no problem. I'm allowing for the chance that I could be wrong, but I'm suggesting someone try an alternative and see what happens. If it's too risky, try using the sponsorship route as I wrote above.

The thing about quitters (and we're talking about those who hoped to take chess by storm, and learned it would take time, if ever) is I've played some I've known in offhand games. They refuse to take pawn or piece odds, out of pride. Tell them they might win a brilliance/strategy prize, they don't care since they want first and foremost to win the event, or as you put it, kick butt. In Reagan's words, for them, there is no substitute for victory :).

There is if you can redefine victory. Is chess forever doomed to be only about winning and losing individual games? If we starting attaching importance - and rewards - to brilliancies and strategies, we begin to redefine victory. We're not talking Cold War or War on Terrorism here, we're talking about a meaningless but beautiful board game. In which case, hopefully not even Reagan can stand up to "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game."

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

I was not suggesting Canada make chess960 "the new standard" or even close to it. But chess federations should not be so blind to chess960. There should be chess960 events whenever and wherever there are standard chess events, and let the people decide which they prefer. Standard chess will not disappear! The younger generation, I believe, will eventually for the most part prefer chess960, but they don't get that option right now. What is probably needed is for a much more lucrative sponsorship of a chess960 World Championship.

There have been chess960 events, even between some of the world's best if I recall correctly, but not in the number I think you're hoping for. At some point, if there are more and more chess960 events, standard chess events will start to suffer where these events are held most. Say in North America, first, for example, as you might wish. Then you have a transitional period to chess960 where organizers of either type of event are not entirely satisfied, until standard chess is played far less and eventually becomes extinct, officially when FIDE declares chess960 the new standard.

Well, okay, hoping to make chess960 popular by slowly undermining standard chess is one way of getting change, but is this a less painful and more plausible scenario than waiting for standard chess to be replaced globally by decree of FIDE by agreement of Federations (and ideally many of the top players as well)?

About the experiment aspect: I did make mention that class prizes could be maintained as they are now, and organizers could approach corporate or private sponsors and offer them the opportunity to sponsor, not the class prizes, but the brilliancy and strategy prizes. First of all, see how the potential sponsors react to this idea. Would Microsoft Canada like to be associated with a nationwide awarding of brilliancy prizes in chess events? What about a major financial company's name associated with Strategy prizes?

This would be the best of all worlds: still reward the class winners, while also rewarding those who do the best job of generating ideas or of formulating long term strategies (which in some cases will also be the class winners). And the sponsors get associated not with just a chess event, but with the very concept of brilliancy or of long term strategy.

No problem with having the best of both worlds, as you describe.

Ok, so the CFC doesn't have a competing CCF, but they are definitely competing for customers, against anything else people could be spending a weekend doing.

Good point. The CFC should try to improve the value of having a membership, for one thing to please customers who can't play in a lot of weekend events, by striving to offer more services. Have a chess server or a deal with an established one like ICC, for example.

If rule changes are ultimately agreed to be necessesary, after careful surveys/consideration, or organizers need to offer a different product on the weekend, with different prize structure, or faster (or slower) time controls are desired by most players (beyond what the CFC wants to tell organizers to do at the moment) then so be it.

One point: chess does not need to be the most popular game/pastime in the world. It just needs to thrive a lot more than it is now. There may be no hope it will even come close to poker in popularity, nor need it try by introducing luck. The absence of true luck is an attraction of chess all of its own, and this could be made a stronger selling point, even to compete against poker if you wish. Standard chess played well is a difficult game, but that does not devalue it, it is just not something easily digested by the masses. Anyway, as Pope John Paul II said to young people, choose the difficult path. It has its own rewards.

If you don't consider the awarding of prizes to the same small group of players week after week, event after event, as a problem (including the problem of having some players sandbag in one event so they can return to a section they can win in a subsequent event), then you are as blind to what constitutes at least one defective part in an overall product as Toyota quality control people were to a defective accelerator mechanism.

If chess events were better attended/promoted then more players would be in fighting contention in the top section (even in poker, the same players tend to win over and over, although poker events are of course better attended and better funded with prizes). In the lower sections, the winners are more variable, I think you may be forgetting. Especially since if a player improves then he leaves that section and goes into a higher one in future events.

As for sandbagging, that can be alleviated to some degree by changing the rating system in Canada to be like the modern USCF's, with a rating floor (i.e. in the US, if a player is at any time say 18xx then for the rest of his career it can never go below 1600, if I recall correctly, and similarily if he ever reaches 19xx then he can never go below 1700). Plus alert organizers can arbitrarily assign ratings to people suspected to be under-rated, or make rating sections say 1750-1950 sometimes (at the last moment, even), rather than 1800-2000, which might trip baggers up. Perhaps sandbagging is less common than you think anyway.

Is chess forever doomed to be only about winning and losing individual games? If we starting attaching importance - and rewards - to brilliancies and strategies, we begin to redefine victory. We're not talking Cold War or War on Terrorism here, we're talking about a meaningless but beautiful board game. In which case, hopefully not even Reagan can stand up to "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game."

Chess books can put stars in people's eyes, which may be part of the reason there are people who quit after only a short time after trying to play in organized chess events. They read about world champs and prodigees who rack up marvelous results and winning game after game becomes their motivation for playing, and they think they can surely succeed in a short time.

There are also lots of books that show sparkling games, with words of praise, and newbies think they too can produce brilliancies, in a short time. Another illusion, as I've tried to explain in other ways in previous posts.

I have losses I'm not ashamed at all to show, but I have to tell you losing is often a hard pill to swallow. If you don't want to lose so often, you have to put in work, build up your muscles so you won't be beaten so often, so to speak. When I do lose I take consolation if I have at least placed some problems/surprises in the way of the opponent. No one likes to lose without a fight, or blunder horribly, and this can happen more often if you don't put in study time. I put in study time when I was younger, but not nearly as often or intensely nowadays. I've coasted for decades, though aided by experience in actually playing games. As I read long ago, in an old Hoyle book on rules of games, chess is a pastime that you should not take up unless you are prepared to spend lots of time on it.

As I've said in other posts, there are other attractions chess has for people, anyway. A weekend or evening away from home, talking with chess friends, arguing the merits of moves in post-mortems, speed chess on the side, chess variants on the side (for at least some people), following the careers of top players, fascinating study material (if you like to study)...

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

One point: chess does not need to be the most popular game/pastime in the world. It just needs to thrive a lot more than it is now. There may be no hope it will even come close to poker in popularity, nor need it try by introducing luck. The absence of true luck is an attraction of chess all of its own, and this could be made a stronger selling point, even to compete against poker if you wish. Standard chess played well is a difficult game, but that does not devalue it, it is just not something easily digested by the masses. Anyway, as Pope John Paul II said to young people, choose the difficult path. It has its own rewards.

You might ask, if I wish to keep chess the difficult game to play well that it is, at least for now, what are the rewards for those who pursue chess excellence/improvement, at least to some extent, but who like me did not quite make it to the very top of the heap, in the sense of not having obtained at least an IM title?

Well played chess offers a variety of rewards; any individually might be obtainable in other fields, but the combination of the rewards is unique to chess. I can list some that I can think of off the top of my head; they might be used to promote chess to the public, or the educational system.

First though, the negative side: as I've written elsewhere, chess is not a viable career in North America for most people, at least at the moment. I myself have spent way more on entry fees and expenses (including books and equipment) than I've won back as prize money.

Now for the rewards. As a chessmaster I more than occasionally get compliments, even from my non-serious-chess playing friends. I'm sure even half-decent class players get such from friends and family. It doesn't matter if many people don't realize that it doesn't take genius to be even half decent at the game. It even may impress some of the ladies, provided that if they care to play you, you occasionally manage to lose :).

The study and play of chess, with an eye on improvement, teaches many things. Critical and analytical thinking. Objectivity. Planning. Becoming wary of tempting possibilities that seem promising in the short run. Learning that the truth can be elusive, and that authorities are often wrong in their pronouncements. Psychology. Time management. Responsibility for one's choices. Occasionally, the consequences of good/poor sportsmanship. Research skills. Appreciating the games of the top players much better, like one can appreciate fine art. I'm sure other people can keep the ball rolling here.

You might say, other board games of pure skill have such rewards, at least potentially. What makes chess, as it is, special? Well, compared to Go or Shogi there is more of a pleasing balance between tactics and strategy, on average in well played games, in my opinion. Plus the playing pieces of typical standard sets are more pleasing to the eye in the case of chess, I think most would say. In addition, chess has already established global popularity greater than other board games of pure skill, for whatever reason(s).

[Gary Ruben]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

I was not suggesting Canada make chess960 "the new standard" or even close to it. But chess federations should not be so blind to chess960. There should be chess960 events whenever and wherever there are standard chess events, and let the people decide which they prefer. Standard chess will not disappear! The younger generation, I believe, will eventually for the most part prefer chess960, but they don't get that option right now. What is probably needed is for a much more lucrative sponsorship of a chess960 World Championship.

Chess 960 falls into the category of Fairy Chess. There are lots of different variations which fall into Fairy Chess. People used to play it at the club decades ago. These days it seems most clubs are only 1 evening so probably less of the variants are being tried out in Canada these days.

I can only imagine how Chess 960 came about. Probably the "inventor" watched a couple of children set up a board and play. The pieces were not set on their proper square but they played as the board was set up. BULLSEYE!!! Why shouldn't every patser in the world play in this manner.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Chess 960 falls into the category of Fairy Chess. There are lots of different variations which fall into Fairy Chess. People used to play it at the club decades ago. These days it seems most clubs are only 1 evening so probably less of the variants are being tried out in Canada these days.

I can only imagine how Chess 960 came about. Probably the "inventor" watched a couple of children set up a board and play. The pieces were not set on their proper square but they played as the board was set up. BULLSEYE!!! Why shouldn't every patser in the world play in this manner.

Chess960 also is refered to as Fischerrandom, after the inventor, who also invented the increments added with digital clock time controls for regular chess. Fischer's motivation in inventing chess960 was to eliminate what he thought was the problem of too much and too exhaustive opening theory, while at the same time still keeping chess much the same (as are the endgames identically, for example).

Some clubs, like the RA in Ottawa, are open more than one day a week still, if the club can arrange it in modern busy/hard times. However on the RA's extra, casual chess day, speed chess is the norm. Kids, and some adults, occasionally play double chess in Ottawa. The RA club has the odd regular night devoted to a speed event, an Active event, an opening theme event, or a chess960 event, during the year.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Chess 960 falls into the category of Fairy Chess. There are lots of different variations which fall into Fairy Chess. People used to play it at the club decades ago. These days it seems most clubs are only 1 evening so probably less of the variants are being tried out in Canada these days.

I can only imagine how Chess 960 came about. Probably the "inventor" watched a couple of children set up a board and play. The pieces were not set on their proper square but they played as the board was set up. BULLSEYE!!! Why shouldn't every patser in the world play in this manner.

Gary, did you really not know that Fischer was the inventor of chess960? Or maybe you did know, but you don't think much of Fischer, and you think observing children is how he invented it?

This actually does beg the question, how did the standard opening position get arrived at? Did players try all the permutations of pieces behind the first row of pawns and decide the current one the best, and if so, based on what? I do know that castling was something added much much later.

I'll ignore your derisive term for chess960, because I know you have invested many years of opening research and so are predisposed to dismiss anything else. But really, any of the opening chess960 positions are just chess positions, as worthy of study as any legal position in which all 32 pieces are on the board. When you say, "Why shouldn't every patser (sic) play in this manner", I have to ask, where is this coming from? In other words, what makes the standard opening position so superior to any other starting position?

If your answer is that the standard opening position is exceptionally balanced (which it does seem to be), that implies that every standard chess game should be a draw, with best play, and any win or loss is just an imperfect game. Patsers (sic) indeed!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

I think Tom has given a response to this line of reasoning that I can concur with. Not sure you and Tom and I will ever agree on exactly how significant knowing lots of 'theory' is for class player/newbie level. Certainly they can make more work for themselves in learning it than is necessary.

Kevin, I'm not the only person proposing that there's too much opening theory in even the Class A, B, C levels of chess.

Here's a very nice description from someone on the Australian ChessChat forum:

"Although orthochess is very complex, the variance is not good enough in today's computerized chess. This creates a tedium in opening play, because players will again and again find that their variants aren't playable. They won't unfold into a creative struggle, but turn out to be drawish, or are advantageous to the other party. Hence they are forced to learn long and tedious theory in order to play serious chess. Today's grandmasters must be theoretically well-prepared rather than intuitive and creative. One can't really play the King's gambit anymore, and combine like Adolf Anderssen. There is no point, anymore, to play the Closed Sicilian, à la Spassky, or the Vienna Game, etc. In fact, amateurs, too, often give up opening variants which aren't perfectly adequate because the opponents can prepare against them. Moreover, theoretical development has led to a form of theoretical phobia, when amateurs habitually try to avoid theory at all costs (e.g., they tend to play the French Exchange, etc.). This is equally damaging to chess creativity.

Had orthochess been somewhat more complex, then a greater choice of opening lines would be at their disposal. In this way professional chess could remain creative and stimulating. This would be a boon for chess at large and ensure that it won't lose in popularity. In that way the game can attract other categories of people who aren't particularly theoretical, nor interested in becoming memorization artists. They can become strong players anyway."

Very well worded! Maybe you and Tom need to wake up and smell the coffee?

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/che...onvariants.htm

[Gary Ruben]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Gary, did you really not know that Fischer was the inventor of chess960? Or maybe you did know, but you don't think much of Fischer, and you think observing children is how he invented it?

This actually does beg the question, how did the standard opening position get arrived at? Did players try all the permutations of pieces behind the first row of pawns and decide the current one the best, and if so, based on what? I do know that castling was something added much much later.

I'll ignore your derisive term for chess960, because I know you have invested many years of opening research and so are predisposed to dismiss anything else. But really, any of the opening chess960 positions are just chess positions, as worthy of study as any legal position in which all 32 pieces are on the board. When you say, "Why shouldn't every patser (sic) play in this manner", I have to ask, where is this coming from? In other words, what makes the standard opening position so superior to any other starting position?

If your answer is that the standard opening position is exceptionally balanced (which it does seem to be), that implies that every standard chess game should be a draw, with best play, and any win or loss is just an imperfect game. Patsers (sic) indeed!

I know everyone needs someone to worship. Since I don't want to be worshipped, you can use Fisher or your buddy whose chain you try to yank.

There are so many Fairy Chess games I've lost track of who invented what. While I've found some fun, an evening was always enough play for me.

Regarding how the chess position was arrived at and the movement of the pieces since the last ice age, probably a history book would be more entertaining than my description. Regarding Fischer, who won the championship from Spassky in one of the most incredible displays of personality I have every witnessed in any sport, the most we can say is he didn't defend and never again held the title. In determining greatness in any sport longevity and the ability to defend a title is a criteria.

While I notice you don't like the way I spell "patser", I find it preferable to the other spelling. It's not derived from an English word as far as I know.

Regarding openings, I'm not playing enough these days to bother much with them. I only kept current on theory when I was playing a lot of games and wanted to win. The opponents I was playing didn't get to be correspondence Masters and Grand Master without knowing the latest theory. Chess isn't like poker where your opponent either gets his card or he doesn't.

When someone comes up with a 32 piece tablebases we will find out if chess is a draw. Until they it's fun for some, a profession for others. Nothing wrong with either.

It probably costs less to be a chess patser than a poker patser.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Kevin, I'm not the only person proposing that there's too much opening theory in even the Class A, B, C levels of chess.

Here's a very nice description from someone on the Australian ChessChat forum:

"Although orthochess is very complex, the variance is not good enough in today's computerized chess. This creates a tedium in opening play, because players will again and again find that their variants aren't playable. They won't unfold into a creative struggle, but turn out to be drawish, or are advantageous to the other party. Hence they are forced to learn long and tedious theory in order to play serious chess. Today's grandmasters must be theoretically well-prepared rather than intuitive and creative. One can't really play the King's gambit anymore, and combine like Adolf Anderssen. There is no point, anymore, to play the Closed Sicilian, à la Spassky, or the Vienna Game, etc. In fact, amateurs, too, often give up opening variants which aren't perfectly adequate because the opponents can prepare against them. Moreover, theoretical development has led to a form of theoretical phobia, when amateurs habitually try to avoid theory at all costs (e.g., they tend to play the French Exchange, etc.). This is equally damaging to chess creativity.

Had orthochess been somewhat more complex, then a greater choice of opening lines would be at their disposal. In this way professional chess could remain creative and stimulating. This would be a boon for chess at large and ensure that it won't lose in popularity. In that way the game can attract other categories of people who aren't particularly theoretical, nor interested in becoming memorization artists. They can become strong players anyway."

Very well worded! Maybe you and Tom need to wake up and smell the coffee?

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/che...onvariants.htm

Memorization, to a certain extent, is necessary in chess, or even in chess960. I'm thinking of endgames which are absolutely necessary to know - these are identical for both forms of chess.

Your unnamed critic of standard chess from Oz does not give his rating, so I don't know if he is more likely given to common misconceptions. If you want to cite someone who thinks chess is almost played out, cite Fischer. However he had a narrow repertoire because he thought, probably unjustifiably, that many openings considered playable were unfavourable, at least at top level.

My philosophy, when it comes to opening theory memorization, is mainly to know enough to survive. Yes, I play an Anti-Sicilian like the Closed, but more than just that. I play c3-Sicilians and Bb5 Sicilians. I don't play the King's Indian Attack, or the Exchange French for that matter, much, because I believe they have few chances of gaining an edge against reasonable or memorized play.

I pick the quality choices, in my opinion, amonst those with less theory. Even if there is only one main variation that interests me, say in the Bb5+ Sicilian, I make up for this lack of variety by also playing the Closed and the c3-Sicilian. Sometimes I do play open Sicilans, but usually with something special in mind that requires knowing less theory to survive. At least at my level.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Paul,

For the sake of argument, let's for a moment agree that everything you have written is 100% true.

By your reckoning the people who are still in chess must be the very people for whom this memorization is pleasant, or at least not so unpleasant as to detract from the rest of the game. In that case, why would these people want to switch to chess960?

Sure, you might be able to attract people for whom serious study of openings is very unpleasant. But since it is unlikely that such people would ever switch over to classic chess, I am not sure how this would increase participation in classic tournaments.

Your idea reads to me like someone going to a cigar club/bar and telling the owner that he would make more money by catering to non-smoking, non-drinking Vegans. He might do better but the risk is in losing every single customer he has now, no?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Paul,

For the sake of argument, let's for a moment agree that everything you have written is 100% true.

By your reckoning the people who are still in chess must be the very people for whom this memorization is pleasant, or at least not so unpleasant as to detract from the rest of the game. In that case, why would these people want to switch to chess960?

Sure, you might be able to attract people for whom serious study of openings is very unpleasant. But since it is unlikely that such people would ever switch over to classic chess, I am not sure how this would increase participation in classic tournaments.

Your idea reads to me like someone going to a cigar club/bar and telling the owner that he would make more money by catering to non-smoking, non-drinking Vegans. He might do better but the risk is in losing every single customer he has now, no?

I appreciate your last paragraph, Tom. It sort of sums up and supports what I have been trying to tell Paul, and Jean for that matter, about some of their ideas.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Kevin, I'm not the only person proposing that there's too much opening theory in even the Class A, B, C levels of chess.

Here's a very nice description from someone on the Australian ChessChat forum:

"Although orthochess is very complex, the variance is not good enough in today's computerized chess. This creates a tedium in opening play, because players will again and again find that their variants aren't playable. They won't unfold into a creative struggle, but turn out to be drawish, or are advantageous to the other party. Hence they are forced to learn long and tedious theory in order to play serious chess. Today's grandmasters must be theoretically well-prepared rather than intuitive and creative. One can't really play the King's gambit anymore, and combine like Adolf Anderssen. There is no point, anymore, to play the Closed Sicilian, à la Spassky, or the Vienna Game, etc. In fact, amateurs, too, often give up opening variants which aren't perfectly adequate because the opponents can prepare against them. Moreover, theoretical development has led to a form of theoretical phobia, when amateurs habitually try to avoid theory at all costs (e.g., they tend to play the French Exchange, etc.). This is equally damaging to chess creativity.

Had orthochess been somewhat more complex, then a greater choice of opening lines would be at their disposal. In this way professional chess could remain creative and stimulating. This would be a boon for chess at large and ensure that it won't lose in popularity. In that way the game can attract other categories of people who aren't particularly theoretical, nor interested in becoming memorization artists. They can become strong players anyway."

Very well worded! Maybe you and Tom need to wake up and smell the coffee?

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/che...onvariants.htm

At the risk of giving away secrets my competitors don't already know, I can tell you my core repertoire (what I use when I'm not given to occasional whims of infidelity to it). I know I could expand it to include more openings I consider playable, even for a win, but I don't play enough games in an average year to justify it:

Black:

vs. 1e4: French (Winawer, Guimard Tarrasch), Nimzovich Defence,
Caro-Kann, Pirc, Sicilian Kan,
Sicilian Dragon (playable deviations mainly learned so far),
Open Lopez (learning still, avoiding the dullest lines),
[Anti-]Marshall Lopez (learning still, but used mainly against duffers I suspect don't know theory).

vs. 1.d4: QGD Classical Orthodox (via 1...e6/d5/Nf6), QG Tarrasch,
Grunfeld (learning still, mainly use vs. duffers),
Modern Benoni (learning still, mainly use vs. duffers)

vs. 1.c4: 1...e6 intending ...d5, 1...e5 intending Closed Sicilain Reversed

vs. 1.Nf3: 1...d5/e6/Nf6 (including Ragozin QGD),
1...g6 intending Modern/Hippopotamus, Grunfeld or Pirc.

White:

1e4: c3-Sicilian, Closed Sicilian, Bb5[+] Sicilian (if 2...e6/Nc6 3.c3 possible),
Open Sicilians (some learning still, since I don't like Sozin anymore),
Evans Gambit+4.d4 2Kts, c3+d3 Italian, Ruy Lopez (learning still)
3.Nc3 French, Advance French (mainly vs. duffers)
Panov Caro-Kann, Austrian & Classical setups vs. Pirc/Modern

1d4: Catalan, Averbakh KID, Classical Exchange Grunfeld (learning still),
Nc3+Nf3+e3+Be2 vs. Grunfeld/KID, going into a reversed QG Tarrasch if needed, g3-KID/Grunfeld (still learning), Exchange Slav,
Transpose to Catalan if Black tries Semi-Slav (i.e. 2...e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Nbd2)

1c4, 1.Nf3, 1.g3, 1.b3, 1.f4 used occasionally, 1.e3, 1.d3, 1.Nc3 more rarely.

I find chess openings still rich enough for me:).

Here's an example of me not knowing theory, but still surviving vs. Shirov, at least in a Simul, through understanding chess and thus knowing how to find reasonabe moves in the opening:

Shirov-Pacey, 11 Feb, 2010:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.Qc2 Nf6

(not exact; 6...Bg4, 6...Bd6 or 6...g6 are better paths towards the hope of equality)

7.e3 0-0 8.Bd3

(even GM Shirov hasn't memorized everything, as this gives Black a chance to muddy things; 8.Nf3 Nbd7 9.Bd3 Re8 10.h3 etc. is the way to a SLIGHT edge)

8...Na6!?

(I knew this was a playable move just by chess understanding; I actually 'found' it because of a tactical oversight - after 8...Nbd7 9.Nf3 Re8 I thought 10.Nb5?? was a big problem, but simply Bb4+ at once, or much better yet 10...cxb5 11.Bc7 Bb4+ -+, more than saves Black)

9.a3

(Zugic, in a database game I have, played 9.Bxa6 and eventually beat a 2100+ player, but Fritz evaluates it only as +=, and Shirov simply wasn't 'prepared' for this 'variation', naturally; if I played him again, I would simply deviate earlier)

9...c5

(my idea, even though it spends a tempo after ...c6, but my opponent has spent time on a2-a3: I understand chess, to some extent!)

and Black had equalized, even in Fritz' estimation. I eventually drew a reasonably exciting game in style, in spite of playing a 'dull' QGD.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

I appreciate your last paragraph, Tom. It sort of sums up and supports what I have been trying to tell Paul, and Jean for that matter, about some of their ideas.

Tom and Kevin,

On one of the seemingly thousands of links that the climate change threads have produced, one led to a concept that is pertinent to what we are talking about here. It was to a diagram of what I believe was called the "bathtup" concept. It was referring to a bathtup containing the world's ocean water, with a faucet that is pouring CO2 into the oceans and a drain that is allowing CO2 to escape the oceans. The author explained that even many people with graduate degrees somehow don't understand that if the drain is draining less than the faucet is pouring in, the bathtub eventually overflows. Seems a simple concept to me.

It is relevant here because we were discussing enlarging the base of the pyramid of chess players, specifically I think CFC membership. In this case, the drain is draining out far more than the faucet is pouring in, so the bathtup is in danger of emptying.

Kevins idea is to turn up the faucet of newbies to the point where it overcomes the drain. He chooses to for the most part ignore the drain, although he has suggested improving CFC services. I'm suggesting that maybe CFC services or lack thereof isn't the main reason for the size of the drain. I'm suggesting, as others evidently do as well, that the drain mainly exists because newbies quickly realize that they don't know enough about openings to be competitive and they immediately sink near the bottom, where the drain beckons enticingly, as if saying, "You don't need this, you have other things to do with your weekends". In the case where the newbie isn't a young child, they are so far behind as to have little chance of ever being competitive.

The two of you both seem to think that standard chess and chess960 must somehow be mutually exclusive. Tom's cigar club example especially presses that point home. I have never made that suggestion. Standard chess and chess960 can and should exist side by side. This is just one idea to grow CFC membership and to enlarge participation in tournaments.

Instead of Tom's misguided cigar club example, think of major poker events. Is everything No Limit Texas Hold Em? Not on your life, there are a whole smorgasbord of tournaments making up each major event. Now one could say, there's little difference in skills required between Omaha and Hold Em. Possibly true, but there are differences in skill when you compare the betting structures, the three main ones being Limit, Pot Limit, and No Limit. There are also two other distinct ways to play the game, again each requiring their own special skills and techniques. These are "multi-table tournaments" and "cash" or "ring" games. There are players who specialize in one and only one of these structures, or in either tournaments or cash games: although they may dabble in the others, they just seem to prefer and do better in a certain one.

It could be that way for chess too. Some people don't want to memorize and will prefer chess960, and some of the more tactical standard chess players will welcome the challenge of taking up chess960. The more positional, strategical players will prefer standard chess.

If you guys really want to think about growth, think out of the box. As long as you keep the blinders on and stick to only standard chess, there will be little to no growth.

And one last time: STANDARD CHESS AND CHESS960 CAN COEXIST!

Sheesh, as Kevin likes to say! :)

[Bob Armstrong]

Fischer's View of Chess 960?

Hi Paul:

Didn't Fischer think that Chess 960 would eventually replace Standard Chess? Did he not think it would introduce a variety into chess ( and make traditional opening theory less of a weapon ) that would in time prove very attractive to chess players becoming bored with the ever-narrowing scope that Traditional Chess was developing?

Bob

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Fischer's View of Chess 960?

Hi Paul:

Didn't Fischer think that Chess 960 would eventually replace Standard Chess?

Seems rather unlikely because I believe Chess 960 is not exactly the same as "Fischer Random Chess". I strongly doubt that Bobby would accept another name for the game he patented. Knowing Bobby's attitude to people he considered to be riding his coat-tails I'm guessing his opinion of 960 would not be appropriate for a public forum.