One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

[Kevin Pacey]

As a Canadian teenager back in the 1970's I made some [optimistic] guesses about what chess might have in store for me, Canada, or even for the grand old game itself, if I decided to pursue it at least half seriously for a lifetime, and these guesses all proved to be entirely ... wrong. :(

Guess #1: I could become at least a GM if I studied hard, if not a world-class player or even world champion.

Reality: This didn't happen. I consider myself fairly exceptional to have even become a master by my mid-twenties (but I advanced no further).

Btw, it should be well known that nowadays if you haven't made a big splash by the time you're twenty, you can forget about being a world-class player. I forget where I read this, but it seems to be quite true.

Guess #2: If I became at least a master, I would surely more than recoup all of my lifetime's tournament entry fees (if not book and equipment costs) in prize money.

Reality: Not even close.

Guess #3: Even if I failed to become any sort of a strong player, I could hope to produce some sort of brilliant 'immortal game' that would be published all over the world.

Reality: Even though I became a master, I've long since realized that it invariably takes two strong players playing freakishly good chess for there to be any chance of a masterpiece ever being produced. Oddly enough, my relatively recent simul games against Short and Shirov did make it to Chessbase's website momentarily, and lots of my lesser games are distributed worldwide, courtesy of monster databases now.

Guess #4: The state of organized chess in Canada would somehow improve in a steady fashion, enabling me to think about playing professionally, i.e. without writing, teaching, and coaching, even if I was merely an IM. That was in spite of what the know-it-all middle-aged casual players were constantly saying at the local club.

Reality: As we all know, this didn't happen, but, rather, things got worse, to put it mildly. I can console myself with the thought that one IM I know made the same miscalculation regarding Canada's chess 'infrastructure', and he has stopped playing the game for several years now.

Guess #5: Computer playing programs would never rise to the level of strong chess players, so the glory of humanity (including possibly myself) would forever rule chess. All the books I read back in the 1970's said so. I had some doubts, but when I took into account the exponential possibilities of the game, I finally reassured myself it was true.

Reality: Boy was everybody wrong!


Having seen all of my early guesses/dreams for chess long since crushed, one might ask what I now get out of playing the game. Well, aside from being left somewhat addicted to the game, I still get a kick out of playing a huge variety of openings and positions. Looking up stuff in databases and books still makes for fun home study - very hobby-like. I get to play weekly at my local club, where competition is generally neither too weak nor too strong.

Even more fun is going upstairs to the bar and grill after my club games. Weekend chess cash prize tournaments provide the illusion of chasing after serious cash, even though rationally I know it's a losing gamble in the long run, especially now that some titled players are competing (though it's stimulating to play them still). I think I may be looking forward to getting into seniors chess in a decade, especially if the CMA (or CFC ?? ) provides the infrastructure.

[Claude C]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

___________

[Peter Bokhout]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

Kevin, to a lesser extent, my story duplicates yours. Only thing is, my rating never got past 2119 USCF. I had spent nearly fifteen years playing in tournaments and ten years helping to run the Toronto Chess Club before I quit tournament chess in 1990 to get married and start thinking about a family and a house.

Perhaps many people are in the same boat. Unless a person has fantastic talent, so that they can reach 2300, say, without too much effort, they will be forced to quit if for no other reasin than that they will have to earn some money and start living a "normal" life.

Professional chess as it exists now in North America is really a losing game. Look at some former Canadian champions like Ivanov, Spraggett and Zugic. Where are they now? Igor Ivanov, a candidates-level GM, died early with basically no money. Kevin Spraggett, who incidentally was always very friendly to me, got his GM title along with several Canadian championships but where did that get him? He is now semi-exiled in Portugal and a lot of Canadians, to judge from chesstalk, don't mind that he stays there. And Igor Zugic seems to have quit chess entirely.

Come on chesstalkers! All of us and the new executive will have a lot to do to raise chess's profile here in Canada. Let's start with the school programs and then get them to go to the chess clubs and tournaments...

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

Two points:
First, playing professional chess is viable (in my humble opinion) for someone with a rating of maybe 2400+ and, especially, an IM or GM title (eg Mark Bluvshtein). Of course, you have to spend much of your time in Europe (where the big tournaments are), but that's true for people competing at the highest level in almost any sport (hockey and curling excepted for Canadians). I agree that trying to be a "professional class prize winner" on the N. American Swiss circuit is NOT a viable career.
Second, but why quit tournament chess entirely (as so many of our strong young players seem to do these days when they reach adulthood). I don't see a problem with playing once a week at the local club, plus a few local swisses each year, and an occasional Cdn Open, even as a married person with a job and family. Of course, maybe that's easier for someone with a modest rating like mine (oscillating between 1500 and 1700 for the past few years)!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

Guess #5: Computer playing programs would never rise to the level of strong chess players, so the glory of humanity (including possibly myself) would forever rule chess. All the books I read back in the 1970's said so. I had some doubts, but when I took into account the exponential possibilities of the game, I finally reassured myself it was true.

Reality: Boy was everybody wrong!

Your overall post is very interesting and well written.

On this specific point: Moore's Law (that computing power would double every 18 to 24 months) was postulated in 1965. Chess is a game of perfect information. Thus, computers must overtake humans in raw chess calculation at some point within your reasonably expected lifetime. Somehow, you and others must have thought that human understanding of long term strategy would prove superior to raw tactical calculations. I believe Kasparov was driven to prove this as he played Deep Blue. Well, it's all history now and raw calculation has won the day.

That is precisely because chess is a game of perfect information. If the computer can calculate deep enough in a reasonable time, it will "see" the strategy -- not as a strategical concept perhaps, but as a terminal position that it will score like any other.

What this shows is that chess is not the model of reality that we may have once thought it was. But where humans can still overcome the most up to date computing power is in those realms that do model reality, i.e. where luck and chance play a part.

For example, Expedition Chess:
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=2872

For a computer engine to excel at this game, it must manage reward vs. risk. Perhaps if we look ahead another 50 years of unbridled computing progress, it will be able to do this, but not in a way that will produce 100% success against humans. The very presence of a luck element prohibits that. But for now, humans should have a huge upper hand in this game.

In an attempt to "prove" this, I did play a game of Expedition Chess against a computer engine which in standard chess would easily kick my butt. The engine, of course, is programmed only to play standard chess and so does not realize that its chosen move may be subverted by chance. It doesn't explore the consequences of failure to accomplish a specific move. So you see why I put the word prove in quotation marks. Until a program comes along that could explore such consequences and make that a part of its decision making, we only prove that computer programs as they exist now cannot handle reality nearly as well as humans can. They can't handle the element of chance. Although, I do hear that there is a pretty good poker program out of the University of Alberta.

Here is my game of Expedition Chess for the curious (you should go to the link above and read rules of Expedition Chess before playing the game). I'll agree that it's not much on the excitement scale, and that any such game against a computer programmed only for standard chess must necessarily be boring: it's going to be the human playing carefully waiting for the computer to "gamble" (which the computer doesn't realize it's doing) and fail. For real excitement in such a match, we need a program that knows it is playing Expedition Chess rules and makes choices accordingly.

Expedition Chess itself could easily become a boring game if neither side gambles at all. There needs to be an impetus to gamble. Maybe a different scoring system, 1 point for a draw, 3 or more points for a win. The higher the points for a win, the higher the urge to gamble.

[Event "Expedition Chess Game 000000001"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "June 2010"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Firebird 1.1 Win32 Chess Engine"]
[Black "P. Bonham"]
[Result "1/2 - 1/2"]

1. Nf3 d5
2. Nc3 Nf6
3. d3 e6
4. Bf4

({ Dice roll: 9 allows the attempted move. })

4. ... Nc6
5. e4 a6

(5... Be7 6. Nb5)

6. e5 Nd7
7. Be2 Be7
8. d4 0-0
9. 0-0 Nb6
10. b3 Bd7
11. a3 Re8
12. Qd2 Rc8
13. Bd3 Bf8
14. Bg3 Ne7
15. Bf4 Ng6
16. Bg5 Be7

({Here I am possibly giving up my good Bishop, but at the risk that White's capture on e7 will fail. White has no idea that such a risk exists, and so will certainly attempt the capture.})

17. Bxe7

({ Dice roll: 9 allows the capture. })

17. ... Qxe7
18. Bf5 (Bxg6)

({ Dice roll: 3 prevents the capture on g6. We are playing the "Rigid" version of EX-Chess (also known as REX-Chess), which means that the dice roll itself decides the Bishop must land at f5, and does not have the option of e4. The Bishop only reaches f5, where it is lost. Of course, a person knowledgeable about the rules of Expedition Chess, and thus knowledgeable of the risks of attempting Bxg6, would not attempt such a move, because all the intermediary squares (e4 and f5) leave the Bishop en prise. })

18. ... exf5
19. Rfe1 Be6
20. Ne2 c5

({ Ooops, I should have played ... Nd7 first. Now if White takes on c5, I have to either gamble that my Rook can recapture (can't gamble the Queen, because it could end up on d6!) or I have to bring the N to d7 anyways and allow White to play b4 to consolidate the pawn on c5. Lucky for me, the computer engine isn't thinking like that AT ALL: dxc5 is not in its list of top 3 moves. })

21. Nf4

({ Now I have the opportunity to make White gamble a little, that his Queen will succeed in recapturing on f4. There is no significant positional penalty to give me second thought on doing this. })

21. ... Nxf4
22. Qxf4

({ Dice roll: 8 allows the recapture. })

22. ... Nd7

({ Correcting my move 20 mistake. })

23. g3 Qd8
24. Kg2 Qc7 (Qb6)

( { Dice roll: 3 prevented the move to b6, but c7 is not a bad square either, especially since White is not finding any active plan, such as a Kingside pawn storm. })

25. Rac1

({ Dice Roll: 5 allowed this move. })

25. ... Qb6
26. dxc5 Nxc5
27. Rcd1 Ne4

({ There's the threat of Qf2+, but that would be very risky, a 4-square move that could see the Queen eaten up by either Rook. Again, my silicon opponent doesn't fathom any such risk, just the threat. })

28. Nd4 Qa5

({ Let's see if the engine will worry about it's a-pawn and let my Queen into b4 or c3. })

29. a4

({ Yup. But now I'm thinking ...g5 is very tempting. Risks opening up my King if some pawns get traded off... since I'm ahead I'll play cautiously. })

29. ... Rc7
30. f3 Nc3
31. Qd2

({ Here I could take a sure Rook and have White gamble on a 3-square Queen move to take my Queen. But that's a game-changing risk, and then my Knight doesn't have a retreat square. Now I'm in a bit of a spot because my Knight is protected at a distance. Again, I can breath a little easy knowing that my opponent isn't aware of that factor. But even so, I also can't gamble that my Queen can slide over to c5. But I can ease it over, and undo the pin at the same time, forcing White to move it's d-file Rook. })

31. ... Qb6

({ A distinctly EX-Chess move! })

32. Ra1

({ Dice roll: 5 allows this 3-square move. })

32. ... Qc5
33. Re3 Rec8

({ Dice roll: 7 allows this move. })

34. Rd3 b5

({ Trying for a rearrangement of the position, either by getting my Knight to b5 to chase / trade White's Knight at d4, or get a pawn on b4 making my c3 Knight immovable and having White create his own further weaknesses. })

35. axb5 Nxb5

({ Inviting White to try a 5-square Rook move Rxa6, which it considers risk-free (but not necessarily the best move). })

36. c3 Nxd4
37. cxd4 Qb6

({ Now my Bishop can slowly get into the game. All the heavy pieces left are those affected most by EX-Chess rules, which could mean lots of positional manouevering ahead from my point, and maybe some failed gambles from White. })

38. Ra2 Bd7
39. Qe3 Bb5

({ Dice roll: 5 allows this move. })

40. Rdd2

({ If this were standard chess, Rook infiltration to the 6th rank would be one immediate plan, eventually focused on winning the b-pawn. But here any lengthy Rook expedition is fraught with danger. Advancing Kingside pawns is also dangerous: White's Queen is much better positioned to invade there than mine is to defend there (because of the e5 pawn). It almost seems the best plan is to make White create a plan, and react to that. })

40. ... Rc6
41. Qf4 g6

({ Looking like my Queen needs to get to g7 via d8 and f8. })

42. h4 Qd8

({ Dice roll: 10 allows this move. })

43. Rdc2 (Rdb2)

({ Dice roll: 12 caused this attempt to fall short. Note that although in standard chess, this move would be a blunder (notated with ??), in EX-Chess a move like this is just a gamble that fell through. So no ?? notation here. Being ahead already, I can leave the tension on the c-file. })

43. ... h5
44. Rd2 Kg7
45. Rab2 Qf8 (Qh8)

({ Dice roll: 3 causing my Queen's expedition to h8 to take at least one more move. })

46. Qg5 Qh8

({ Dice roll: 10 allowed this move. })

47. Qe3 Qh6

({ Dice roll: 6 allowed this move. })

48. f4

({ Now the Kingside is locked for good. Back to the Queenside.... })

48. ... Qh8

({ Dice roll: 9 allowed this move. })

49. Qf2 Qd8

({ Dice roll: 7 allowed this move. })

50. Rdc2 Qb6

({ Dice roll: 7 })

51. Rxc6

({ Dice roll: 8 allowed the 4-square move. })

51. ... Bxc6
52. Qd2

({ Dice roll: 9 })

52. ... Kf8
53. Rc2 Bb7

({ Will White try the 6-square gamble? })

54. Rxc8+

({ Dice roll: 7 allows the 6-square move. })

54. ... Bxc8
55. Qc3 Bd7
56. Kf2 Ke8
57. Ke3 Kd8
58. Kd2 a5

({ At this point I decided to "agree" to a draw. })

1/2 - 1/2

[Paul Bonham]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

A further thought on a rule that could make Expedition Chess more interesting: have a rule that for both players, every N moves must contain at least one "expedition" move (a Bishop, Rook, or Queen move of more than 1 square distance). N might be something like 12 or 16. Wouldnt' totally prevent boring play, but would make it harder to fit that expedition move in to a spot where it would have little to no negative consequences if it failed.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

Kevin, to a lesser extent, my story duplicates yours. Only thing is, my rating never got past 2119 USCF. I had spent nearly fifteen years playing in tournaments and ten years helping to run the Toronto Chess Club before I quit tournament chess in 1990 to get married and start thinking about a family and a house.

Perhaps many people are in the same boat. Unless a person has fantastic talent, so that they can reach 2300, say, without too much effort, they will be forced to quit if for no other reasin than that they will have to earn some money and start living a "normal" life.

In my case I'll never know completely for sure if I had the talent to make it to GM level as a young man, if I'd been able to go all out for chess as a career. As it happened health issues and some other twists and turns got in my way. Above all one needs the time and money to travel to FIDE title norm tournaments, which are seldom available locally or in a nearby city, even (which is a crying, crying shame).

Professional chess as it exists now in North America is really a losing game. Look at some former Canadian champions like Ivanov, Spraggett and Zugic. Where are they now? Igor Ivanov, a candidates-level GM, died early with basically no money. Kevin Spraggett, who incidentally was always very friendly to me, got his GM title along with several Canadian championships but where did that get him? He is now semi-exiled in Portugal and a lot of Canadians, to judge from chesstalk, don't mind that he stays there. And Igor Zugic seems to have quit chess entirely.

Of course I would prefer that there were a viable professional curcuit of tournaments in North America, but the first hurdle is to become an IM or GM. After that one can play elsewhere than North America as Ken points out in the post below yours, but again this is a bit of a shame.

Come on chesstalkers! All of us and the new executive will have a lot to do to raise chess's profile here in Canada. Let's start with the school programs and then get them to go to the chess clubs and tournaments...

I believe we have to plan to hold way more FIDE title norm tournaments here in Canada so that more kids can see some sort of glimmer of hope for pursuing chess professionally as adults. Otherwise they'll be quick to abandon the game as soon as they realize how remote their chances are. Come to think of it, we should probably be honest from the start and tell them at every opportunity that chess should be viewed as only a hobby for what will be the vast majority of them, and sell the game to them (as well as typical adult members) on that basis. Yes, for that modest purpose too, school programs, clubs and tournaments (low level ones) can be built up as you wish. Only begin to talk about dreaming of substantial numbers of kids becoming chess professionals once the 'infrastrucure' for that is in place, if that day ever comes for Canada.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

...
Otherwise they'll be quick to abandon the game as soon as they realize how remote their chances are.
...

A lot of kids play hockey even though their chances of making it into the NHL are almost negligible... Come to think of it, a lot of adults play Lotto even though they have an almost zero probability of winning a big prize.

Chess has value that is not related to earning a living or becoming famous.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

I believe we have to plan to hold way more FIDE title norm tournaments here in Canada so that more kids can see some sort of glimmer of hope for pursuing chess professionally as adults. Otherwise they'll be quick to abandon the game as soon as they realize how remote their chances are. Come to think of it, we should probably be honest from the start and tell them at every opportunity that chess should be viewed as only a hobby for what will be the vast majority of them, and sell the game to them (as well as typical adult members) on that basis. Yes, for that modest purpose too, school programs, clubs and tournaments (low level ones) can be built up as you wish. Only begin to talk about dreaming of substantial numbers of kids becoming chess professionals once the 'infrastrucure' for that is in place, if that day ever comes for Canada.

A problem for the CFC, as ever, is how to balance (in terms of funding, and the time and effort of organizers) the needs of the vast majority of CFC members vs. the needs of the top players (or perhaps, too, those who see themselves as on the way up).

At the moment the CFC has limited resources, so it is stretched to meet both sets of needs. I expect conflict over how to divide such resources will continue for a long time yet (e.g. on this message board).

Building a satisfactory 'infrastructure' just within Canada for top players will take a long time, but meanwhile (as the division of resources permits) how best to sell chess as a hobby to the vast majority of members (kids or adults), if that's seen as a good thing to do?

Already there are the services for [mainly average] members that the CFC has (e.g. a newsletter), as well as school programs, clubs and (low level) tournaments that can be geared (if they are not already) towards those treating chess as a hobby.

What's missing? Well, there could be lots of speed and/or Active tournaments WITH prizes. CFC ratings for speed chess. More chess for seniors (aged 60+!?). Online tutorials and quizzes. The CFC could one day provide an internet server, or else make a deal on behalf of members with an existing server, such as ICC (as the CFC did once before). If the CFC can ever afford it, have CFC chess teachers and coaches, even for adults...

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

A lot of kids play hockey even though their chances of making it into the NHL are almost negligible... Come to think of it, a lot of adults play Lotto even though they have an almost zero probability of winning a big prize.

Chess has value that is not related to earning a living or becoming famous.

Yes, for a moment I was focused only on the chess-playing kids who have stars in their eyes right from the start...still, I think that's a big fraction. Can you explain why so many kids who play chess drop out as aduts? I can understand it with hockey, not as well with regard to chess.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

Chess playing has no financial incentive. Neither does hockey short of the AHL. They are recreations: pursued for personal pleasure. Work produces something that others want, in order to recoup financial compensation. Who here would personally pay big money for someone else to play chess?

So organize events, make them enjoyable, and get people to pay for that enjoyment. As for pros, they will make what the public wants to pay for their contribution. (They contribute great games, lessons, lectures, books, tournament organization etc.) The average player would give less than $50/year towards professional chess, and in Canada that's far less than $1,000,000 annually, maybe only $100,000.

People stick with or abandon hockey the same as they do chess. Tons of adults play in casual leagues, etc., but tons more kids play the game.
These are recreational activities. There are hundreds of such activities, and every kid must pick 10 and every adult 2. That's all there's time for. The only thing we can do is make better events. It will never be a money game.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

Chess playing has no financial incentive.

US universities offer scholarships for excellent chess players. A.Botez won one :) Thus there are monies for chess. However it should be not compared to national sports

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

Anecdotal observations:

We had four juniors here in Ottawa, all over ten years old, who at one point were all interviewed for the CFC magazine/newsletter. Only one of the four didn't think he was going to be world champion one day. The other was content to be a GM.

Also here in Ottawa, my club has something like 20+% of its members being juniors, the younger ones coming with their parents. One of the youngest (approximately six years old at joining) was rather upset the first day he came, when he wasn't paired against one of the strongest (adult) players in the club.

Just my own feeling, but I think that all the kids who play in our club are deadly serious (other than some being rather noisy before the tournament games begin).

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

One of the youngest (approximately six years old at joining) was rather upset the first day he came, when he wasn't paired against one of the strongest (adult) players in the club

That beauty of chess. I think Smyslov told similar thing that amateur chess players would play any day with the champion while boxers would avoid the champion :D

[Roger Patterson]

Re: One Canadian chessplayer's early thoughts on chess ... and reality

US universities offer scholarships for excellent chess players. A.Botez won one :) Thus there are monies for chess. However it should be not compared to national sports

and as a result, she ranks pretty highly on the list of life time money winners in Canadian Chess. Must drive the wannabe professionals batty. :-)