|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 My History Behind the GameOk, as GM's indirectly imply, you generally learn how to play chess and become good by people who give you optimisum and encouragement. For example, I read an article with GM Carlson, and one reason that he became the world champion was due to training by GM Kasparov, who gave a lot of optimisim. Well, for me, it's quite the opposite, believe it or not. The reason is that, from where I come from, I did not get optimisim in the beginning. In fact, this is one reason I didn't learn the game, until I was in High School. I was, at first, interested in the game, while I was in Middle School, but people weren't nice to me and didn't teach me how to play the game. Instead, after defeating me, someone said something like, "I could've defeated you sooner, but I was being nice since you don't know the game." And, he was quite sarcastic. So, I stopped playing until I was in High School. For a long while, I was not even interested in the game because of that experience. But, what started to change my mind was that I was in danger of failing English because I kept failing vocab quizzes. Yet, I remembered just how difficult the game of chess was, during that time. And, I realized that English could not be any harder then chess. In fact, chess was harder, so I would try it again until I learned. Unlike before, I had someone who was very patient. He indirectly taught me the basic rules of chess because when I would move, he told me what I couldn't move by saying, what was illegal by saying, "You can't do that", until I finally remembered the basic rules. And, I learned different languages from the game, making me realize that chess is also a language, and what everyonelse learns plus what GM's illustrates that it helps with reading, writing, and math. That year, right after I learned the game, I started getting A's on those vocab quizzes, and I went from being in danger of failing to getting a solid A. It had all do to with learning and becoming familiar with the game. Next, as this was when I needed coaching to become a better player and didn't have a lot of optimisim. So, I was taking Analytical Reading, as well as, College Algebra W Trigonometry. Now, I needed help, and I did not get a lot of coaching. There was one coach who did not do a good job. That's because when I went to learn and was making comments which was proof of a novice, he said that I'd be lucky, if I ever surpassed beginner status and said that I'd be hopeless. When he went to coach, all he said was were things like follow openings. Or, this is bad because a N on the rim is grim, without going over theory which is vital and why certain moves were bad. Therefore, it took me a long time to become good at the game, let alone, become a coach and mentor for novices at the game. So, since then and seeing how it helped me in school, I just kept playing. The reason is that I went from being in danger of failing Algebra W Trig and Analytical Reading to getting a C and C+ in those two courses. It also helped me get an A in TV production, but I wasn't that good. So, my goal was to become good enough so that I could coach and mentor novices and help those that have the same difficulty that I once had by giving them the encouragement that I wish I once had. By believing in myself, and remembering what a couple of good coaches and mentors have taught me, I was able to do that. Nowadays, chess has helped to become a good valuable worker. In fact, this, is a reason that I became a local celebrity. The idea is that I used those strategies and applied them for my job. Or, as they say, "Applying chess strategies for business strategies." The other idea as ION said is, "When the need is great, that's when you come with ways to deal with a task in a crisis situation. That chess provided you with the background shows it's power in stretching your mind and imagination." I absolutely agree with that based on experience. So, what is my take? I agree that everyone should learn the game, especially at a young age because chess can help you in life. |
||
|
Thanks, Joe... I also came to chess fairly late: I was 11 when I first discovered the game in a chess book (Morrison and Bott's 'Chess for Children'). Having no one to play with, the thing might have ended there, but I got the same book out of the library a year later. And was hooked. But I still had no one to play with until I reached high school (Year 9) and found others who played the game. Having completely forgotten 'Scholar's mate' by this time, I was handed a few hefty defeats by a classmate, who happens now to be a Gameknot sunscriber: thejoxter. For a long time I couldn't figure out why 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 ... seemed to lead to an automatic win for White. How had the grandmasters missed this? So our opening theory consisted of 1.e4 e6. There was no school or local club, no coaching, nothing so sophisticated in a town of barely 4000 souls. Eventually, at age 15 I persuaded my parents to buy me a chess book for my birthday. They found Gerald Abrahams's 'Pan Book of Chess' - an editorial dog's breakfast, but it became my chess bible for years later. I still have it, though the thing long ago fell to pieces. That book taught me a lot much of it in the end game, though being lazy, progress was pretty slow. Still and all, in my last year at Waitara High School 6 of us Year 12 pupils held, during our lunch breaks, a double round robin chess tournament. It went on for weeks. I don't recall how we organised it, or even if there was any formal organisation, but the thing went the distance: all games were played. Not knowing how these things were scored, we took 2 for the win and 1 for the draw. I took first by a considerable margin: 17/20 (8.5/10). My draw and loss were against the bottom two players. Second place scored 12/20 (6/10). My last high school year was spent at a different school (Spotswood College) in nearby New Plymouth. It was whilst there that I shared 1st in the Taranaki Schoolboy Champs (rather generously: my game against Evan Ubels, the strongest schoolboy player, was adjudicated unfinished in an end game in which I had two pawns for a knight in an unclear position). As Evan was another Spotswood College student, we cleaned up at the Taranaki School Teams Competition; Evan at Board 1, me at Board 2, thejoxter at Board 3, and one Gordon Bond at Board 4. That year (1968) I played in my first 'adult' tournament (Queen's Birthday weekend, I think it was), a 7-round Swiss. After a slow start - loss, draw, loss - I then had three wins in a row, before losing in the final round to the second place getter. Still, 3.5/7 wasn't too bad, and was ahead of Even Ubels (3) and the strong schoolboy player from Hawera we had got to know (2.5). I was quite chuffed with that. When in the following year I went to Auckland University I found out just how lacking in experience and chess knowledge I really was... All the same, somehow or other over the following few years I improved enough to share first place in a 5-round 1973 Labour Weekend Tournament with a couple of New Zealand Champions... At about that time, though marks the beginning of my obsession with chess starting to wane. Strangely enough my game improved more with the waning of interest than during the time when I couldn't get enough of the game. Go figure. |
||
|
|
||
|
There was something... yet there were others who adopted an air of lofty superiority that was hard to get past or break down. This might have been overcome, but my impecuniosity kept me away from chess clubs where my obsession with the game would have redounded to my good. And that meant that I was unknown. I recall one guy rather rudely declining a game with me a club, as if I wasn't worth his while. Since then I always wanted to beat him in a tournament game, but we never met over the board. It was incidents like that, together with discovering a different obsession that led me to lose much of my engagement with chess. From about 1974, I played only a few months in the year; played only in weekend tournaments, and never ever played in the New Zealand Chess Congress. Even these days, I'd rather talk chess than play, which is why I quite like to annotate or comment on annotated games. This involves exploring ideas and perhaps finding 'teachable moments.' I'm not that great an analyst, nor yet a strategist - there are others far more qualified from a chess point of view than I for this kind of thing, but they are more sparing with their input. If I can inform and entertain, I'm well content. |
||
|
baddeeds 21-Aug-19, 16:49 |
Deleted by baddeeds on 26-Aug-19, 16:09.
|
||
|
chessalexia 15-Sep-19, 19:33 |
Sibling rivalry Now I will never lose. I am the Champion. My brother has everything a man could want. All I have is chess. I actually study chess so he will never take my title. If I allowed that he would have everything. |
||
|
Professor Pownall's Oversight. Your experience reminds me of the short story with the above title. Two students, later academicians, developed an intellectual rivalry that included chess. The handsome and urbane Morisson was morose and misanthropic Pownall's superior in every activity but one: chess. For all that, Pownall convinced himself that he was Morisson's intellectual superior. Morisson was the sort of person for whom things came easy; Pownall had to work hard for his success. But Morisson developed a sudden improvement in his play, so that even in this field, Pownall found in him his match. So he concludes that he has to kill Morisson. Which he does. Meanwhile Pownall had been working on some startling tactical lines in a number of opening, transforming them into highly theoretical gambits. Entering a master tournament, he resolved to try out his ideas. In the first round, he pulls off his surprise, and immediately his opponent finds himself in the toils of difficult complications. But to Pownall's horror, he sees the ghost of Morisson walk through the door of the tournament hall, approach Pownall's table, and take up a position behind his opponent. Pownall's opponent is uneasily aware of Morisson's presence, but as the ghost is visible only to Pownall, is unable to account for this feeling. When Morisson in effect starts guiding the opponent's hand, the unease develops into physical distress, but the opponent remains transfixed, forced to play out the game. The game is an epic: Pownall plays the game of his life, but gradually succumbs to the material deficit offered in his gambit line. The relief felt by his opponent was due to the departure of Morisson's ghost, not to having won the game. That is the start of a tournament-long ordeal for Pownall - who, as everyone acknowledges, plays the most brilliant chess of everyone in the event, only to have zero at its end. It's one of the best chess stories I've ever read. |
