Joe, the average chess player is going to end up being confused by your approach. “Find 30 games in a database.” That is a statement that has many assumptions behind it. Which 30 games? How does the student know that the games selected are of any quality? Are there typical themes in the games? Does a 2 minute scan of a game really give you the time to process any of the information? What skill sets must the average player have to have to even recognize that there are patterns? Even Kotov would have a hard time selecting candidate moves this way.
Selecting random games from a subvariation in a database to find useful information is no easy task. I have worked with authors who agonized over which games to use as examples in their opening books. They did a lot of sifting of old and new sources to find proper stem games for further study. Doing a data dump or asking the amateur player to just select 30 games on the off chance that he will understand what he is looking at is a poor method of getting her to understand the opening. A well annotated game of a subvariation by an someone expert in the line holds greater hope that the player will understand the concept. For example, in the book “Modern Chess Strategy” there is a section on the Minority Attack in the Queen’s Gambit Declined. Several games were explored which the average student can learn much more about, both generally and specifically than if he merely picked 30 games of the Queen’s Gambit out of a database. Your approach is fine for a master level player who already has the skill and experience to scan large amounts of data from a variety of different sources. This is the same problem any researcher has when looking for information. Which information is good? Who are the recognized experts in the field? What is the history of the area you are looking at? If I select 30 websites on the internet, or pick 30 books at random on a topic, am I really doing a competent job of research?
Here is an experiment for you, Joe. Go and let a student pick 30 games in the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez from your database and have the student take an hour to scan them. Have another student read RJ Fischer’s annotations for an hour of his game with Svetozar Gligoric in “My 60 Memorable Games.” Which student will understand more about this variation? I have done something similar with students in several different openings. The well annotated stem game approach appears to work better, even with the savvy database user. Now she has something to guide her further study and can make proper comparisons of the games she looks at.
Having worked with kids who think very fast in a variety of subjects, they have weaknesses in move selection from scanning the board too fast, making assumptions concerning the moves they choose, and not looking with any depth for threats of their own or of those of their opponents. The speed of use of databases has to be tempered with caution that you might be missing something. Kids race through things and we think they are learning when they are barely dipping into the complexity of a position. Speed of thought can create a hit and miss superficial approach to pattern recognition, especially when you are trying to explore an involved concept like sacrifice for compensation or even the “Greek Gift” sacrifice. Kids will jump and play a move without recognizing that the conditions are not appropriate. Going through several key examples and stem games helps them to understand when to jump. In this way, they not only develop a set of “rules of thumb” but also guides them to develop more concrete thinking.
Joe, there you go again assuming things. I have tried your experiment in order to familiarize myself with a new opening on several occasions. I used 50 games rather than 30, but the same method. It was OK, but then I am more experienced in tournament play and have studied more than the average player. The major problem was which games to pick. Since I already knew who were the prominent theoreticians and tournament players who frequently used the opening, I have a leg up on the amateur player. Even so, some of the games available I had to reject as useless for exploring typical themes. I find it easier to look at game collections in books to find annotated stem or root games for further study. I then try out the variation in blitz or even experiment in tournament games to see what the variations are like in the heat of battle. Like most masters, I learn more from my own games, both good and bad, than mimicking the play of others. See Yermolinsky in “The Road to Chess Improvement.”
Hey, if you are stubborn and don’t want to try other methods, then fine. Nobody is forcing you to do something that was successful for others. This has been an interesting discussion so far. I teach kids, too. I have tried to look through their eyes and experience in order to help them learn. I think your method is workable, but only with more experienced high rated players.
I found Yermolinsky a hard read, sometimes contrived, but with some gems. I prefer Watson’s book on the same theme, which was published a little earlier: a smooth read, more like a Ph.D. dissertation, doesn’t require a board.
I read Pachman’s series, Nimzowitch’s “Chess Praxis” and Vukovic’s “The Art of Sacrifice” around 1400, while in HS: great insights, giving me a new awakening. I have nothing against books.
How to decide what games and openings to research with databases? Rule of thumb:
At least one player must be 2600+. (If 2400 players were so good, they would be 2600.)
Avoid adding gimmicky openings to your arsenal. There are reasons why you won’t see 2600s playing certain openings vs other 2600s. (Even Spassky played the Latvian Gambit with success after Iceland, but that could be more about intimidating a lower rated opponent. Lenderman played the Morra Gambit vs Gulko in a late round of a US Open, and paid the price. Youthful exuberance!)
How far do you want to go in chess? With kids, the teacher must be willing to know their own limitations, before showing kids anything, and be a good judge in “horse flesh”. I had one kid in class, who could not make any sense on how to stop the Scholar’s Mate. The other kids knew this. I showed him the French. Chess is not for everyone.
Yes, databases are for more advanced players. I am only guessing from limited experience, but an 1800, who has had a quick increase in rating until then, could be ready for this approach.
You are mimicking other players after 1. e4. The point is how far do you go with it. There was a time up to about when Karpov became WC, that to defeat GMs to become a GM, you had to add to theoretical chess knowledge. Suttles, Soltis and Keene became GMs with a new approach in the openings, that was laughed at before they started to beat GMs with it. Those days seem gone.
I get the feeling that the day is not far off when even book-readers will be turning, in general, to a computer-like device for their chess instruction. In Book Review #104 - Biographies and Game Collections theweekinchess.com/john-watson-r … ollections
Recently, FM Carsten Hansen wrote “Ebook Emporium”. chesscafe.com/text/hansen172.pdf
There is also Dinos to the Slav: Silman on Apple Apps. uschess.org/content/view/12291/719
I find myself anticipating the day when nearly all new chess instruction is initially designed for e-reading (and, gradually, most or all of the old classic books are converted to some sort of electronic form).
The divide between game-reading and book-reading goes back a long way. About a quarter of a century ago, I was in charge of a library for a chess club, and, from time to time, I would ask members what they would like to see in the library. A number of the stronger players would routinely respond by saying that they only cared about the Informant collection being kept up-to-date. Others seemed grateful for books like Understanding the Open Games by GM Soltis, IM Mednis, IM Peters, and IM Hartston. amazon.com/Understanding-Ope … 0890580502
In Secrets of Practical Chess (2007) uscfsales.com/secrets-of-pra … chess.html chesscafe.com/text/review580.pdf
Precisely-- I can with reasonable prediction tell which incorrect lines
players with lower ratings will respond to certain lines. Many times
the why is important, the basic idea for the attack correct, but the
methodology faulty. So to praise the creativity, but work with the
plan, one must be able to relate to the novice player
As teachers it is important to award praise where possible, as relationships are generally critical. In that regard, from what I have
heard, the movie was far too harsh on Josh Waitskin’s chess coach.
Great theatre, perhaps, but hard to believe one could be truly effective and act as that character was depicted.
Force of habit over decades, makes looking through books for themes is understandable.
The teaching method in SEARCHING FOR BOOBY FISCHER was appropriate for that particular student. Both teachers realized that. Understanding your private student’s personality and character is necessary.
Of course, as previously mentioned, it seems that the day will come when one consults a book primarily by going to a computer-like device.
When dealing with a fictional character, it is hard to test what is appropriate. I believe that, if you find the commentary of the real Bruce Pandolfini, you will find that he did not consider the movie behavior appropriate as a way to behave towards the real Joshua Waitzkin. blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/2008/0 … ok-vs.html
The period in the book and the movie was quite a while ago. Vinnie Livermore passed away before the movie was released. Bruce was a chess instructor years before he met Josh. Bruce had another very young student before Josh. His last name, I believe, was LeDonne.: a very talented kid, who when he reached puberty, would rather play in Little League, and dropped chess completely.
This was Bruce’s second chance to develop real talent. Yes, Bruce was intense at one time. He hasn’t developed another International Master since Josh, not that such talent grows on trees. According to an interview in NEW YORK magazine, Bruce earns six figures per year since the movie. Financial comfort and success, organizing teaching classes, and being able to demand the highest rate for private lessons, tends to lessen that type of intensity.
Certainly any published comments from Bruce after the release of the movie, were geared for the new business opportunities that were available.
Bruce is still the most experienced chess coach in the NYC area, if not the country.
If we have no evidence other than (1) Bruce Pandoolfini saying that he did not behave as depicted in the movie, (2) the book not agreeing with the movie, and (3) the movie itself not making any claim to being a documentary, I would say that the best guess (by far) is that the real Bruce Pandolfini did not behave as depicted in the movie.
You are guessing. That’s right. To a degree, so am I. At least I have seen the people involved over the years. No, decades. I will say that Bruce does not get as frustrated as Ben Kingsley acts. Both Vinnie and Bruce can be forceful, (Or Vinnie used to. His favorite expression for the last few years was, “What are you bringing to the table?”)
