Eastern Europe and Russia (dumb question?)

All Things Chess
1

Hello everyone! I have a question that is probably pretty dumb. I apologize in advance.

When I see the list of top US players, many if not most of them sound like Eastern Europeans and Russians who have come on over to our shores (and they are very welcome, because we thrive on diversity). That means that the top US players are not really US players but players from the Eastern Europe/Russia chess culture who have come over here.

The real thing is talent, of course. In no way am I trying to demean or diminish anyone’s accomplishments. But we really don’t have much native chess talent in the US, do we? Our leaders are mostly from somewhere else.

Anyway, what are your observations about chess culture, and the difference between here and there?

2

This does seem to generally be the case, but Hikaru Nakamura is an American born player who is our 2nd highest FIDE rated player (behind Gata Kamsky). Keep an eye on Ray Robson as well in the future.

3

Hikaru Nakamura was born in Japan. At the U.S. Championship two years ago, there were eighteen grandmasters. All were immigrants. 15 were born in the Soviet Union, 1 each in Australia, Japan, and Cuba. That’s changed now since Josh Friedel has become a GM.

We’re a nation of immigrants, so I don’t have a problem with it.

Alex Relyea

4

In my opinion there is currently a lot of native chess talent (still in training though) in the US due in part to growth and popularity of scholastic chess and due in other part to influx of strong Eastern European players who make their leaving by coaching chess.
The issue is that in US there is no structure to support comfortable lifestyle to more than just handful of chess professionals. There is no government support, there is no (with some exceptions) corporate leagues or sponsorship unlike in other countries.
Talented juniors when they about to graduate from high schools quickly realize that financially they will be better go to a good college and get “real job”, than try to make a leaving through chess. Others (or their parents, like in the case of Fabiano Caruano) decide to move to Europe and pursue chess opportunities and support there.

5

I agree. There has been a major improvement and advancement in the last 30 or 40 years ( since I first became interested in the game) And I am optimistic that with technology (computers) and the Chess professionals that have come to this country and are teaching, that will grow much faster in the next 20 years. Just my take on it.

6

I don’t have any problem with it either. What problem could there be? It’s a cultural variation question.

Official support is an interesting facet of the difference. But for instance, there was no particular support for the Polgar daughters’ experiment. Their father hit upon chess as a field for testing his theory about learning. (The eldest daughter became curious about the chessmen she found, and so the field was selected. Their father already had a theory about learning before that.)

Anyway, here are some ideas. Any truth in them?

  1. In Eastern Europe/Russia (EER to make it easier in this post), there is indeed some institutional support. But, I have a hunch that there was also less for people to do in that environment. So the people exercise their minds however they can. This idea is hard to express, but of course I don’t mean it in an insulting way. I think simply that people will find something to do with their minds, and if there is no current outlet, they may find one in chess.

  2. In America, we have a very swashbuckling, Wild West type of culture. The individual against all, the individual’s vision, big corporate success based on a single person’s original idea, the rights of the person to be free and to express himself. I think that this produces attacking chess.

You can see this, also, in the way some people here pursue tactical exercises. de la Maza is an extreme example of the idea that by doing hours’ of tactical exercises per day, by golly you can make your way forward in chess. Unfortunately, the psychology and the reality of chess is that most situations are not really attacking.

Now of course some players are more attacking, others more positional. But the cultural bias here is toward attacking. This is probably not the case in EER.

In EER, the game is pursued more methodically, goes my theory. Rather than being an individual’s expression, it is seen more directly as it is. The positional element of chess gets its due in EER. Here it gets short-changed somewhat. And when people in America realize that chess isn’t all tactical puzzles, they give up. They would rather stop than re-tool their minds for the more positional psychology.

So I wonder if a cultural variation is responsible, in part, for the difference between chess here and chess in EER. Our swashbuckling individualistic cultural tendency just isn’t able to compass the more sophisticated positional truth within chess.

A related comparison is to go back a few centuries. Back in the 1700s or so, chess games were wildly tactical. Players would trot the queen out early, and try to play all sorts of tricks. Eventually opening theory surpassed all that kind of thing: quiet sophistication was superior to noisy tactics.

Anyway, it’s interesting. Perhaps institutional support actually explains the difference more. I don’t know.

7

Since it seems unlikely that the USA is ever going to have the kind of professional chess tournaments that would support more than a handful of pro players, the main avenues for making a living from chess in the USA will remain teaching and (to a much lesser extent) writing.

However, that’s true in a number of other sports as well, There are many more people who make a living as club pros (ie, teachers) than on the golf tournament circuits.

Why do those GMs come to the USA? Some of it may be for geopolitical reasons rather than economic ones.

8

One difference may – may – be that in the USA there are so many things to distract kids from focusing on one area. Also, it seems that there is not the kind of network of clubs for kids that seemed to exist in the old Soviet Union. And still another reason might be that the kind of capitalist culture that we have in the US does not favor endeavors that take many years to come to fruition. As a result, people are less patient, and hence the years it takes to develop chess mastery are an outrught impediment. As Americans, we want things; and we want them now. That kind of attitude can help in certain areas; but in establishing a chess culture it is deadly.
Finally, it seems that chess culture thrives where adults can easily participate in it. This is not so easy in the US. But if you have a place where adults can come to play, talented and interested kids will surely follow. Instead, we have plenty of attention and centers that are devoted to children’s chess; but the intensity and depth of interest that you get there is not so great. In addition, the Little League-like mentality of some parents for their children’s ratings ruins the atmosphere for all concerned. This is why I think that an undue focus on kiddie chess is a huge mistake that reaps very litle future benefits.

9

I can agree in general with your analysis, but I have seen great strides made in the interest in the game. I am afraid it will take time to see the dividends but I am also sure they are coming. Hopefully as the next generation evolves there will be less “Little League-like mentality”. Parents maybe a greater deterrent than the children themselves, with the win at all cost mentality. That is not saying all parents, but the mentality of American Culture in past decades have demanded nothing less.
The main concern I see, as an additional problem, is the new fad of no losers, all are winners. That removes the incentive, and drive to excel. This in MHO produces less, and not more interest. As in so many facets of our culture there never seems to be a middle, stable ground, it seems the pendulum swings to the far right, or the far left, where reason never prevails. Just my take on it.

10

The old Soviet Union did take Chess on as a national project. Chess and the players were state supported, as well as the government totally supporting the chess education system in their structure. I recall reading that the government saw Chess as an activity they would excel in to show the Soviet superiority.

Chess is also much more popular activity in all of Europe and Russia and its surrounding areas than in the United States. Yes, there is that Wild West mentality that would also be applied to Australia from its populace origins.

However, I don’t see the tactical versus positional differences in our land versus those. By the fact that Chess is much larger in those lands, you also will find more mature chess players there than here. It’s a sheer numbers thing, you see. The more mature chess players usually are the more positionally minded. Even Tal had a good positional style. I read his writings of his games against Botvinnik and he wasn’t purely tactics.

Chess like tennis has players of different styles, both tactical (more aggresive) and positional. Andre Agassi, a tennis player from this country, comes to mind. Andre was very popular and seen as a very liberal type of guy in our society as a tennis player. However, his tennis style was very positional and he is known as having a style of countering his opponents rather being aggressive on the court.

Chess is similar, we have our aggressive players and our positional ones. It really doesn’t seem to matter what the country of origin is though.

The de la Maza technique does approach things from a tactical only viewpoint. However in all fairness, it is well acknowledged in chess across the world that the difference between a strong GM and an IM is,…tactics. And we do read where until a person’s rating is well above 2000 he should spend his time studying tactics, tactics and tactics. You will also find the likes of Topolav, Anand and Kasparov to all be very tactical in their play. This has nothing to do with the United States as a country.

In summary I agree that Chess is a far more popular and populated activity in European and Asian continents than in America. That fact though shows the game there as being more mature and perhaps sophisticated than in a land as ours where the game is not so much developed at the higher levels.

11

Thanks for your nifty answers. The emphasis seems to be on the infrastructural advantage in the East (meaning EER, not the East, i.e. Asia). For example, the idea that it’s a numbers game: some will percolate up to the top. Quite possibly this is a key. I think at least one institution of higher learning in Russia actually has a ‘major’ in chess!

The communist governments often sought out ways to out-compete the world, too. But chess fits the bill nicely, because it gives the people something to do. I don’t want to be insulting, of course! But to an extent it’s bread and circuses. The people can play chess. But again I don’t think it explains everything. The Polgar sisters enjoyed the institutional support in that many layers of organizations existed within which to play chess, but it would be a stretch to say that they directly enjoyed support. Indeed the government showed up with guns one day, trying to stop the homeschooling experiment! Ouch! Fortunately their dad was a professional psychologist and was able to navigate the shoals there.

Some have said that computers will help here. Maybe so. I’m not trying to debate, just thinking out loud. Why is it that people with more primitive technology got further along?

I think that these days, information technology is actually helping to make people stupider. There are more distractions than ever. Read a book called “The Dumbest Generation” for insights about that. The reality today is that there is never a moment of boredom. What I mean is, there is always a gratification available. Current activity too taxing? Perhaps you’d like to text a friend instead, or watch something on cable. Whatever. People don’t have to concentrate in this new high-tech environment. So I’m not sure that computers are going to help. They provide high-level sparring partners who don’t need to be fed and clothed–but are they even used properly?

I am very intrigued by the positional-versus-tactical discussion. Obviously it’s an all-of-the-above situation. “Love and marriage, … can’t have one without the other!” Etc. There are many opinions about this subject. Actually I heard it differently: the difference between a class player and an IM is tactics. Surely the difference between an IM and a GM is understanding, not tactics. Now the reality is that tactics are underneath. The pieces do certain things. “Tactics is what you do when there is something to do, strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do.”

There are two ways I try to get to the bottom of this question. The first is to imagine an ideal curriculum. The second is to keep an eye on expert opinion.

In his book, Excelling at Chess, Jacob Aagaard makes a few revealing points. First he observes that amateur players constantly like to try forcing combinations. (Forcing is an adjective there.) Aagaard explains that normally there is nothing forcing to be had, and that positional chess is what is needed. Second he suggests something that is truly amazing in contrast with popular advice about tactics: namely, that ‘before you spend a thousand hours on calculation exercises, sort out your personal style, your endgame, and your openings. Calculation will take you the last step up the ladder, but not the first step.’

Wow! I mean, Wow! That’s totally the opposite of what is commonly suggested. Now in “Novice Corner” you can find essays that explain, for example, that tactical exercises really refer to only a single step in the overall hierarchy of thinking that is needed to play a move. But the way some people advocate tactics, you’d think that it’s a much bigger part of the game.

Aagaard also explains that what you do at the board is to look for the positional or strategic idea, and then, identify the tactics that will make it possible to implement. So on the whole I reject the idea that tactics are a critical feature that must be studied endlessly and in a way that seems to me totally out of proportion to reality – but the overall problem of studying tactics vs. positional play is another topic. My point is, first, tactics are probably being overemphasized in the USA. And second, this may have its roots in our individualistic cultural predilections. Also, a more sedate and systematic approach in the East leads to a more apt approach, which puts tactics in its place. An additional idea: it may be that computers themselves are responsible here for an overemphasis on tactics, first because they are overwhelmingly tactical in their operation, and second because the computer makes chess puzzles so easy to represent to the student. Sometimes pedagogy is driven by tools more than by subject matter.

12

Because they had to think for themselves more, instead of letting the technology do it for them. If a person, um-er-uh, my age is using a calculator and misplaces a decimal point on an entry, that person will most likely realize that the answer is “off” almost immediately. A twenty-something is much less likely to notice that the answer is “off”. The younger generations trust the technology more than the older ones do, to their peril.

13

It is not nor should be tactics versus positional chess. It should be tactics with positional chess.

The problem is that the tactics need to be able to be recognized. Once this is accomplished the positional chess will give opportunities for the tactics to occur.

Also, it was indeed a Grandmaster, and a strong one at that, that made the comment regarding the difference between a strong GM and an IM is tactics. Perhaps it is on a more positional viewpoint, but it is still tactics.

Also note that Polgar, the father, has a book in print for training purposes. The book is on tactics. They are the tactical problems that he used with his daughters when training them. So I must disagree with you that all the Eastern Europeans train in positional chess with little emphasis on tactics, based on this book. Also please note that the strong players that trained in the former Soviet Union did also study tactics. Yes, they also studied positional chess but used tactics when they were called for.

Also Russia and the countries that made up the Soviet Union are in the Continent of Asia, not Europe. Yes, the Russians are Asian.

14

Right, the 5334 problems. It says on the cover that these illustrate every known mating position.

As far as the Polgars are concerned, I think the interesting point is how was the day divided up. I don’t get the impression that their day was 50% tactics. I suspect it was more like 5% or maybe 7% tactics. Rather brief. From reading different sources I get the impression that their day was mostly analytical, not pattern recog and pattern ‘storage’.

I think there is a risk that tactical puzzle solving will distract training over here, and keep players from focusing on the game as a whole. (Also people here are fond of trying prematurely to memorize opening lines.) Another ‘American’ trait that predicts both of these is always wanting a quick fix. The Founding Fathers weren’t this way, but in our culture, there has taken hold a kind of self-help instant-fix want-it-now approach to things. Puzzle solving as a means to learn chess fits this pattern, in that solving the puzzles gives the player a simple focus that requires no thought. How to study chess? Easy-- just do these puzzles every day. How to do well in chess? Easy-- just memorize more deeply than you hope your opponent will memorize. Very fatuous approaches.

The cultural variations between here and there are intriguing. I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that we will catch up with computers and tactics. (I just want to explain that ‘catching up’ is not my concern. If they are better well into the future, they earned it, that’s the objectivity of chess. You have a winner and a loser. My concern is simply, what’s the best approach. What do they know that we don’t. Etc.)

15

That’s one opinion. Someone in the younger generation might look at it differently and complain about the old guy who can’t figure out the self check-out at the grocery store. They’re different, but one is not better than the other.

16

How long have computers been heavily used in chess instruction? In the not too distant past, if you wanted to learn from a master, you had to be near one. In Russia, that wasn’t a problem because there was a significant number of them. In the USA, a talented young student in the midwest might be out of luck. Computers may or may not help alleviate that. I think it’s too early to really say.

17

It’s only tangential, but still of interest: I wanted to mention that the former is a case of thinking skills, while the second is familiarity with a particular technology-- and the old guy will figure it out quickly, and may not be able to do much math anyway. That book I mentioned, “The Dumbest Generation”, is an intriguing indictment of the plethora of entertainment and information technologies that plague us today. Used well, of course, it helps. But on the whole it isn’t clear to me that they will improve US Chess.

Now, someone makes the point that these days, you can live in a rural area and have access to good information. But, we still can parse that more closely. Look at all the people who play for years on ICC or FICS, and who have a piddling rating. They are playing a lot, but not thinking a lot, and improving only in a very haphazard way. And the notion that dedicating a thousand or multiple thousands of hours to tactical puzzle solving is probably driven to some extent by computers rather than by the needs of the subject matter. It feels like work and it gives a focus to the effort, but it may not do much good.

My main point of curiosity is, what is characteristic of EER chess culture that we are lacking?

18

What is missing here as opposed to old EER is fundamental and systematic approach in coaching chess. Basically there was a system. I think India and China managed to replicate it with great success those days.

I recall that from grade 4 to 9 I had four hours of coaching (free) every week on Tuesday and Thursday followed by a tournament game every Saturday. Those four hours were spent on every aspect of chess, but mostly endgame and middlegame. There were mandatory homeworks that included both tactical and strategy puzzles and kids who have not done homework were out very quickly. In addition to that there were summer camps ( very affordable, even for my single mother) which lasted almost 2 months.
This system produced reasonably strong players, 1900-2000 level and provided level of competition needed for talent to develop. Those Saturday tournaments were round robin and only the winner got to the next level.
There were also some very talented kids who accelerated very quickly by nature of thier talent and were picked up by “schools” : Dvoretsky school, Petrosyan School, Botvinnik school, etc. Kasparov, Dreev, Bareev, Yusupov, A. Sokolov are good examples.

Here my son goes to a chess class in his afterschool program. The class is 1 hour of which 40 minutes he plays against other kids, basically shuffling pieces back and forth. The remaining 20 minutes the coach shows them a game or couple of puzzles. Better than nothing, but not even getting close.
Provided my son still has interest (which he does for now) my only choice to advance him is by individual lessons with a good coach, which comes at $60.00 / hour if I am lucky, most charge $80.00-$100.00.

19

Thanks for the explanation.

With various chess luminaries saying such things as “Chess is 99% tactics” perhaps I should explain what I mean in my criticism.

I think that Chess could be said to be 100% tactics. But the player needs vision to see what ideas are worth implementing. The problem with the notion of “tactics tactics tactics” is that doing a lot of tactical puzzles may dislodge the effort to gain a greater understanding. By the time a game position is overtly tactical, a lot of ideas have already been implemented on both sides. As we can see in the above post, the Russians etc. of course do some exercises, to improve abilities in tactics and strategy. But they spend a lot of time also on endgame and middlegame. Now I talk like Russian and leave out article. :smiley: Too much reading Russian material. We are always at risk of doing things sloppily, especially in an entertainment culture. Also, the psychology of a tactical puzzle is all wrong. You’re looking for a hot idea, a big sacrifice, blowing a line open, etc. Getting to a point where you recognize a pattern involves learning how to think, not being handed an infinite number of situations in which ideas have already been implemented.

I think a lot of the pattern mania stems from the neurological research that shows that chess players of a certain ability actually recognize chunks as fast as you or I can recognize an old pal. But it doesn’t follow that any format will do for getting the patterns stored. How did the patterns actually get into the minds of the better players? I think that the more a player analyzes, the better they will perceive the correct course of action. With tactical puzzles, the flow is being forever broken.

I think that the reason why the EER dominates the chess performance world is because they are doing a lot more thinking. It’s a numbers game too, but those numbers translate into thinking.

20

Very good points.
When I taught beginners (the only level I would even attempt to teach), I actually had parents complain because I didn’t just let the kiddies play games with each other. I actually gave a mini-lecture; and this was seens as depriving their children of a chance to play each other…and play poorly.
It turns out they were just interested in a chess babysitting service.
A good chess trainer will have some sense of what kind of positions to work on, they’ll be able to suggest a decent opening repertoire, and they’ll be available for moral support when it’s needed.
It’s a far cry from what we usually see.