ChessBase or NICBase?
Amarnath Mukherjee
with NICBase and/or ChessBase:
o Which one does one buy?
o What are there respective pros and cons?
o Can one get them on a Mac or is an IBM-compatible running
MS-DOS essential?
I'm considering getting one of the two...and I have a Mac.
Thanks for any input!
Amarnath
Eric Schiller
Both programs are good. NICbase is cheaper, ChessBase is more powerful.
Both have over 120,000 games available.
ChessBase cannot run on a Mac. NicBAse can do so only under SoftPC.
Both are working on Mac versions.
Both have reps on Compuserve, and can be e-mailed from here (maybe the
addresses are in FAQ? I don't have them here).
Both can now import ASCII files.
Figure on an investment of $1000 for the full treatment in ChessBase, about
$600 from NIC. Starter sets for about $200 each (getting Access instead of`
ChessBAse. Access is read-only version). ChessBase 4.0 was theoretically
released a few days ago, but I don't have it yet. I will post some comments
when it comes, but not a full review because I don't review things I pay for,
as a rule.
Eric Schiller
Paul Rubin
Figure on an investment of $1000 for the full treatment in
ChessBase, about $600 from NIC. Starter sets for about $200 each
(getting Access instead of` ChessBAse. Access is read-only
version). ChessBase 4.0 was theoretically released a few days ago,
but I don't have it yet. I will post some comments when it comes,
but not a full review because I don't review things I pay for, as
a rule.
at least a week ago. It has a built-in opponent (Knightstalker)
which is supposed to be pretty strong and it has very
flashy looking graphics. However I found the interface very
clumsy to use during the few minutes that I tried it. Also,
it wants the whole 640k of lower memory and doesn't have any
concept of expanded memory. If you are running any TSR's,
forget it.
James H. Coombs
>
> Figure on an investment of $1000 for the full treatment in
> ChessBase, about $600 from NIC. Starter sets for about $200 each
> (getting Access instead of` ChessBAse. Access is read-only
Wow! Much more expensive than I thought. This must include the
utilities and some of the opening databases.
>I actually got to see Chessbase 4.0, which must have come out at least
>a week ago. It has a built-in opponent (Knightstalker) which is
>supposed to be pretty strong and it has very flashy looking graphics.
Of course, the strength of Knightstalker depends on the power of your
machine. I could imagine Chessbase being useful on an XT (which is
what I have), but I doubt that Knightstalker would get far enough in
its searches to perform as well as my Fidelity 2000. [I am avoiding
making a guess at its strength on an XT.]
>However I found the interface very clumsy to use during the few minutes
>that I tried it. Also, it wants the whole 640k of lower memory and
>doesn't have any concept of expanded memory. If you are running any
>TSR's, forget it.
I just got the demo for Chessbase 3.0. They drastically need an
interface designer (of the human interaction type, not a programmer who
can make boxes). For example, I requested a game deletion. In a demo,
well, it will never happen, I thought, and in any case, I will get a
warning dialog. Boom! Gone. Permanently. Now if that had been a
game that I had spent a lot of time annotating.... In this case, "use
back ups" would just be a poor excuse for bad design. In general, I
was left wondering just what the program could do for me, and a lot of
that may be due to the lack of a good dialog or manual for the demo. I
never did determine the function of two prominently displayed buttons,
with the cryptic labels N and Q. And the sloppiness in the spelling
and grammar in the demo text. Well, that may be just the demo. And
buy a utility to do this and another utility to do that. Why doesn't
the program have such essential functionality? And just follow these
20 steps to blah blah. They need to hire experienced engineers to
direct their hackers.
In the end, the best I could say for it was that some prominent players
apparently find the program useful. The only person I know who has
Chessbase doesn't use it, although he is happy and proud to own it. My
tentative conclusion is that one has to be a "serious" player at an
"advanced" level for the program to be worthwhile. Must of us amateurs
might better just go get the book on X opening and read the discussions
of strategy as well as play through the games. We really don't need to
know what K has been doing in the last N tournaments, etc.
I was also a potential customer of their "send us N games for $60 an
hour comments from a GM." Their example of a GM's comments should be
something they consider exemplary (or why would it be part of their
propaganda). Well, from that, I thought. Great, my Fidelity 2000 can
give me variations. And I already know that I should find my style
(supposedly), and it really won't help me at this point to have someone
say, "You really should play X opening." Perhaps the service would be
more useful for more advanced players, but then someone's son was a
Class D/E and advanced rapidly thanks to blah blah. But if *you* have
found the service useful, please let us know. What did you learn? Did
you feel that it was worth $60 an hour? Perhaps they should find some
Experts for $10 an hour for players who really don't need a GM's
analysis (although I didn't see anything that an Expert could not have
given just as well).
As you can tell, I am quite unimpressed by all of this, at least given
my current needs and abilities (1100 Elo---with performances in June of
1420, 1099, and 1774). Everyone should judge for themselves. And if
you get the demo, be sure to specify if you have 5 1/4 instead of 3 1/2
drives.
Let's hear more opinions (although I suppose that $1000 indicates
pretty clearly that CB is not for most of us).
--Jim
CAPSA
I am an 1800 player, but am VERY pleased that I own Chessbase 3.0. The reason
is simple: I use it for journalistic and yearbook purposes, NOT to become a
master. For those purposes, it is OUTSTANDING. I bought the "base" setup for
$295, have not added to it and don't intend to, unless CB comes out with im-
provements to its game-loading, exporting or diagram-printing functions. If you
want to collect and store games for purposes other than becoming a stronger
player -- using the program as a chess DATA BASE MANAGER -- I recommend it with-
out reservation. I wouldn't mind improvements -- such as more room for comments
or the ability to accept USCF ratings (as opposed to the FIDE "rounded to the
nearest 5" ratings) -- but can live without them. My $295 was WELL spent.
Jerry Bibuld
John Pope
> I just got the demo for Chessbase 3.0. They drastically need an
> interface designer (of the human interaction type, not a programmer who
> can make boxes). For example, I requested a game deletion. In a demo,
> well, it will never happen, I thought, and in any case, I will get a
> warning dialog. Boom! Gone. Permanently. Now if that had been a
> game that I had spent a lot of time annotating....
Dunno about the demo, but in the actual version of Chessbase, when you
"delete" a game, it is actually marked for deletion, rather than
actually removed. The problem I had when I first started using it
was forgetting to "save" a game after annotating it.
> And just follow these 20 steps to blah blah. They
> need to hire experienced engineers to direct their hackers.
Again, I haven't seen the demo, but I've found Chessbase to be one of
the easier programs to learn and use that I've come across. A large
part of that is due to the user manual, which is the best I've ever
seen (I'm not affiliated with Chessbase in any way, in case that needs
to be said). Also, while there are a lot of features that many people
won't need, but when you do need them there's no substitute.
> My tentative conclusion is that one has to be a "serious" player at an
> "advanced" level for the program to be worthwhile.
Such players will probably get more out of it, but lower-rated players
might also find it useful. When I was a C player I studied tons of
unannotated games using the "guess the next move" technique (I'm still
convinced this is the best way to improve) - this would have been much
faster and more complete if chess databases had been around.
Another thing I find incredibly useful in NICbase and Chessbase is the
ability to search for *types* of positions/manuevers in a large body
of games. For example, learning what GMs do in such-and-such a pawn
structure, correct and incorrect bishop sacs on h7, etc. Most books
cover these topics by rehashing the same few games ad nauseum.
> I was also a potential customer of their "send us N games for $60 an
> hour comments from a GM."
I don't think this was such a hot idea, either. Most people simply
can't/won't fork this much out. Probably you'd have to be at least
2150+ to get your money's worth.
> Perhaps they should find some Experts for $10 an hour for players who
> really don't need a GM's analysis (although I didn't see anything that
> an Expert could not have given just as well).
But this also seems dubious - would you take chemistry lessons from
somebody who hadn't finished the course yet?
> As you can tell, I am quite unimpressed by all of this, at least given
> my current needs and abilities (1100 Elo---with performances in June of
> 1420, 1099, and 1774).
Well, yes - if you are under 1200 (or even 1500) there are a bunch of
things you have to do first and a database would probably just bog you
down with too much information.
--
John Pope
po...@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
James H. Coombs
>(James H. Coombs) writes:
>Dunno about the demo, but in the actual version of Chessbase, when you
>"delete" a game, it is actually marked for deletion, rather than
>actually removed.
Yes, it was still listed, but greyed out. I saw no way to get it back.
>Again, I haven't seen the demo, but I've found Chessbase to be one of
>the easier programs to learn and use that I've come across. A large
>part of that is due to the user manual, which is the best I've ever
>seen (I'm not affiliated with Chessbase in any way, in case that needs
>to be said). Also, while there are a lot of features that many people
>won't need, but when you do need them there's no substitute.
Good to know. The demo desparately needs some truncated manual to lead
people through useful activities. There is an auto-demo or some such,
but it was pretty lame.
>Such players will probably get more out of it, but lower-rated players
>might also find it useful. When I was a C player I studied tons of
>unannotated games using the "guess the next move" technique (I'm still
>convinced this is the best way to improve) - this would have been much
>faster and more complete if chess databases had been around.
I do this with books when I am interested in the position/game. I did
feel that CB helped by making it impossible to grab moves ahead when
getting the next move. I have had to train myself to be myopic about
reading the moves from the book so that I don't lose the opportunity to
work it out for myself. CB looked very strong also in enabling one to
back up easily through several moves and check the position again: I
occasionally want to do that---"Now how was it that we got here?" Of
course, if you can play through a variation and then resume the
mainline, that is ideal; I'm sure that CB can do that, but I didn't see
it myself.
>Another thing I find incredibly useful in NICbase and Chessbase is the
>ability to search for *types* of positions/manuevers in a large body
>of games. For example, learning what GMs do in such-and-such a pawn
>structure, correct and incorrect bishop sacs on h7, etc. Most books
>cover these topics by rehashing the same few games ad nauseum.
I got the impression that you needed a separate utility to do this:
CBTree? Not so?
>> Perhaps they should find some Experts for $10 an hour for players who
>> really don't need a GM's analysis (although I didn't see anything that
>> an Expert could not have given just as well).
>But this also seems dubious - would you take chemistry lessons from
>somebody who hadn't finished the course yet?
Absolutely! But not from someone still in Chem 101. We use tutors
frequently, and they can be advanced undergrads or grads. Beginners
don't need Ph.D.s for all of their lessons and can often learn better
from near peers. I think chess is more like martial arts, where the
Masters are so far beyond that beginners tend to be awe struck. The
advanced students provide more accessible models and can teach them the
primitive techniques that they are ready for.
>Well, yes - if you are under 1200 (or even 1500) there are a bunch of
>things you have to do first and a database would probably just bog you
>down with too much information.
Good to know also. Thanks for the comments. --Jim
Eric Schiller
it if you are under 1700, that's for sure. Just get Access, athe read only version,
for under $50 and buy some collections of annotated games, like, 'fer instance,
the ones they sell at ChessBase USA, some of which were written by top GM's, but
others were written by yours truly, for an audience of average players.
Eric Schiller
Eric Schiller
as bad. Some of the programs have help files that cannot be accessed during use!
(And I have no TSR's and run 386MAX (used to run QEMM before Microsoft C 7.0 forced
the change))
Eric Schiller
Anders Thulin
>
>I am an 1800 player, but am VERY pleased that I own Chessbase 3.0. The reason
>is simple: I use it for journalistic and yearbook purposes, NOT to become a
>master. For those purposes, it is OUTSTANDING.
This is interesting to hear.
A few years ago I got a demo of ChessBase to see if I could use it
as a database, rather than a tool for an active player.
As far as I could judge from the demo, some important pieces were
missing:
* There were no tournament or match information, except in the
games. Thus, no way to get a crosstable, or to evaluate the
performance rating of a player.
* I could not enter player data (rating for different years,
tournaments he had participated in, etc)
* I could not enter source info (from what source I had got
a particular game, say)
Have these things changes since? Is ChessBase better in these areas
that it used to be? (I can't remember what version of ChessBase the
demo was of - 2.something ?)
Is any other database better in these areas than Chessbase?
The alternative of writing my own database that does what I want is a
bit daunting, to say the least.
Unless you feel the question to be of general interest, please email
and I'll summarize.
--
Anders Thulin a...@linkoping.trab.se
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Joe Garbarini
>>j...@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:
> po...@gold.kpc.com (John Pope) writes:
>Dunno about the demo, but in the actual version of Chessbase, when you
>"delete" a game, it is actually marked for deletion, rather than
>actually removed.
>>Yes, it was still listed, but greyed out. I saw no way to get it back.
Hit the delete again.
>Again, I haven't seen the demo, but I've found Chessbase to be one of
>the easier programs to learn and use that I've come across. A large
>part of that is due to the user manual, which is the best I've ever
>seen (I'm not affiliated with Chessbase in any way, in case that needs
>to be said). Also, while there are a lot of features that many people
>won't need, but when you do need them there's no substitute.
>>Good to know. The demo desparately needs some truncated manual to lead
>>people through useful activities. There is an auto-demo or some such,
>>but it was pretty lame.
I also thought the demo needed a manual. I was confused at times about
what functionality had been removed from the demo and how certain things
would be done with the real program.
>Such players will probably get more out of it, but lower-rated players
>might also find it useful. When I was a C player I studied tons of
>unannotated games using the "guess the next move" technique (I'm still
>convinced this is the best way to improve) - this would have been much
>faster and more complete if chess databases had been around.
>>I do this with books when I am interested in the position/game. I did
>>feel that CB helped by making it impossible to grab moves ahead when
>>getting the next move. I have had to train myself to be myopic about
>>reading the moves from the book so that I don't lose the opportunity to
>>work it out for myself. CB looked very strong also in enabling one to
>>back up easily through several moves and check the position again: I
>>occasionally want to do that---"Now how was it that we got here?" Of
>>course, if you can play through a variation and then resume the
>>mainline, that is ideal; I'm sure that CB can do that, but I didn't see
>>it myself.
Playing through variations easily is one of the things I like best
about the program. The manual explains how to get out of the variations
and back to the main line. (Up arrow I think?; I don't even think about
how to do it anymore, my fingers know.)
>Another thing I find incredibly useful in NICbase and Chessbase is the
>ability to search for *types* of positions/manuevers in a large body
>of games. For example, learning what GMs do in such-and-such a pawn
>structure, correct and incorrect bishop sacs on h7, etc. Most books
>cover these topics by rehashing the same few games ad nauseum.
>>I got the impression that you needed a separate utility to do this:
>>CBTree? Not so?
You need the add-on package Motiv ($49) to search for manuevers. I don't
have it so I'll leave it at that.
>>Well, yes - if you are under 1200 (or even 1500) there are a bunch of
>>things you have to do first and a database would probably just bog you
>>down with too much information.
>Good to know also. Thanks for the comments. --Jim
I like ChessBase. I've been using it for about 2 months. I've been using
the "hypertext" facilities to experiment with an on-line chess book for
beginners.
I haven't tried any of the other chess database programs yet.
The biggest problem I've had with ChessBase is the "user key" stuff, but
the problems may be fixed in V4.0.
The technical support line for ChessBase as been very good.
Before you buy any chess database/programs/utilities make sure you know
what you want it to do and what it really does. Talk to the seller. (I
know; knowing what you want the program to do may be hard or even
impossible, but you have to try or risk being real disappointed.)
For example, ChessBase USA's KnightStalker is a chess playing program with
limited capability to save games and analysis. KnightStalker can only save
"straight line" variations; it can not handle variations with multiple
branches. ChessBase 3.0 can handle multiple branches. I spent quite a bit
of time on the phone with ChessBase USA talking with them about the various
programs they have to offer. Their order form is useless for finding out
what the programs do. The demo is helpful but not sufficient.
By the way, the ChessBase demo comes with a demo of KnightStalker in
a compressed executable. It also comes with a free "reader" for reading
limited size ChessBase databases.
Joe
-----
--
--
Joe P. Garbarini Jr.
jo...@grumpy.ssc.gov
John Pope
> Of course, if you can play through a variation and then resume the
> mainline, that is ideal; I'm sure that CB can do that, but I didn't
> see it myself.
Yes, it can.
> >Another thing I find incredibly useful in NICbase and Chessbase is the
> >ability to search for *types* of positions/manuevers in a large body
> >of games. For example, learning what GMs do in such-and-such a pawn
> >structure, correct and incorrect bishop sacs on h7, etc. Most books
> >cover these topics by rehashing the same few games ad nauseum.
>
> I got the impression that you needed a separate utility to do this:
> CBTree? Not so?
NICbase has this search facility built in. ChessBase requires a
separate utility called "Motiv", which can also search for manuevres
like "Ne5 followed by Nxf7 when white doesn't have a black squared
bishop". Like I said, not everyone needs something like this, but when
you do it's nearly impossible to get it another way.
> >would you take chemistry lessons from
> >somebody who hadn't finished the course yet?
>
> Absolutely! But not from someone still in Chem 101. We use tutors
> frequently, and they can be advanced undergrads or grads. Beginners
> don't need Ph.D.s for all of their lessons and can often learn better
> from near peers. I think chess is more like martial arts, where the
> Masters are so far beyond that beginners tend to be awe struck. The
> advanced students provide more accessible models and can teach them
> the primitive techniques that they are ready for.
Another possibility is that chess is like tennis and that habits
gained from bad advice or wrong practice are lost only with great
difficulty. Your mileage may vary, etc...
Kenneth Sloan
>Another possibility is that chess is like tennis and that habits
>gained from bad advice or wrong practice are lost only with great
>difficulty. Your mileage may vary, etc...
Don't push this analogy too hard. Even in your example (tennis) the
best players are not necessarily the best teachers, or coaches. And
certainly not the best writers...
--
Kenneth Sloan Computer and Information Sciences
sl...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Tom Tedrick
->>gained from bad advice or wrong practice are lost only with great
->>difficulty. Your mileage may vary, etc...
->Don't push this analogy too hard.
I dunno. I think Pope is right. Anyway, the 2 people who had
the most influence on my chess thinking were probably Pope and
Botvinnik, so I give John's opinions a lot of weight.
Botvinnik was interested in the algorithms players used, and
I think that analyzing one's internal algorithms can be a key
to making chess progress.
John once told me that one game against a master was worth hours
and hours of study, and I think he's right. Cramming your head
with too much information from books can induce mental sluggishness
or paralysis.
Lasker said something to the effect that he spent the first 25 years
of his life learning, and the next 25 years unlearning what he had
been taught. I think getting the garbage one has learned out of
one's head is much more difficult than acquiring it.
Once bad habits become "hardwired", or integrated into one's
subconscious, it as hell to get rid of them (or even to become
aware that you are enslaved by them).
I think John has a gift for teaching.
--
"Long before the outbreak of the war their brains had become ossified,
and even the terrible circumstances of this battle could not penetrate
the historic concrete in which they were encased." -J.F.C. Fuller
John Richards
>In article <14516...@igc.org> ca...@igc.org (CAPSA) writes:
>>
>>I am an 1800 player, but am VERY pleased that I own Chessbase 3.0. The reason
>>is simple: I use it for journalistic and yearbook purposes, NOT to become a
>>master. For those purposes, it is OUTSTANDING.
I use it to help with publishing a chess magazine. I agree it works very
well. I NEVER get typos in games or diagrams.
>A few years ago I got a demo of ChessBase to see if I could use it
>as a database, rather than a tool for an active player.
>As far as I could judge from the demo, some important pieces were
>missing:
>* There were no tournament or match information, except in the
> games. Thus, no way to get a crosstable, or to evaluate the
> performance rating of a player.
>* I could not enter player data (rating for different years,
> tournaments he had participated in, etc)
>* I could not enter source info (from what source I had got
> a particular game, say)
>Have these things changes since? Is ChessBase better in these areas
>that it used to be? (I can't remember what version of ChessBase the
>demo was of - 2.something ?)
ChessBase 3.0 introduced what they, rather grandly, called Hypertext. You
can create links from files to games in ChessBase files. This should allow
you to store all the information you want. But, you'll have to put the
tournament crosstable in yourself, it doesn't generate it for you.
--
John Richards
James H. Coombs
>->>Another possibility is that chess is like tennis and that habits
>->>gained from bad advice or wrong practice are lost only with great
>->>difficulty. Your mileage may vary, etc...
>->Don't push this analogy too hard.
>John once told me that one game against a master was worth hours
>and hours of study, and I think he's right. Cramming your head
>with too much information from books can induce mental sluggishness
>or paralysis.
So don't cram with "too much"; cram with just enough. Or learn to
break through the paralysis. Consider that the analog to your
statement would be that "too many games against masters can induce
mental sluggishness or paralysis." One is as likely to be true as is
the other. Both are true? What is our justification? evidence?
Remember just because John is a good chess player and a good chess
teacher does not mean that everything he says is right, or right for
all people, or right for all people at all times in their development.
I say this only because you said, essentially, that you have learned a
lot from John and tend to believe what he says. [I hope I am saying
something useful here and not just vexing people for no purpose.] In
short, I think you are verging on providing an "ipse dixit" argument:
roughly "he himself said", ergo, must be true.
>Lasker said something to the effect that he spent the first 25 years of
>his life learning, and the next 25 years unlearning what he had been
>taught. I think getting the garbage one has learned out of one's head
>is much more difficult than acquiring it.
This may be true for many people. After years of academic theory,
however, I find that the hardest thing is to actually believe in
anything. I am not even satisfied that I know what it means for
something to be true; I know several theories of truth, and I know
which ones I find the most attractive, but I don't know which one to
accept, if any.
>Once bad habits become "hardwired", or integrated into one's
>subconscious, it as hell to get rid of them (or even to become aware
>that you are enslaved by them).
Where does all of this rigidity come from? I know that when I played
varsity tennis in high school, I clung to my shabby technique in spite
of all attempts to teach me better. Eventually I matured (a little
bit), and learning superior technique was a breeze. Of course, I had
to accept the fact that my short term performance would be inferior.
Pride, I think, is the source of the ridigity. Pride in what one
"knows" and how one behaves.
The discussion of "bad habits" could become very complicated because we
have many different types of habits. If you keep an open mind and have
the desire to learn, then discarding the bad is easier than initial
learning. When you start, you have no notion of what is going on.
Then you learn something inferior. Then you learn that what you know
is inferior, but that gives you a significant advantage for learning
the better. For one thing, you now know what is inferior, and you know
not to do it. All you have to do is open yourself up and practice the
new instead of clinging to the old. And you have to accept that your
short-term performance may be less impressive, or may seem less
impressive to you. I say these things with chess and with physical
activities in mind. The crucial requirement is acceptance and
practice.
My T'ai Chi instructor initially taught me a very extended and
relatively hard style, then he told me to compact and soften. Since I
was practicing about twenty hours a week, the adjustment was not
difficult, although it did take time. Or, perhaps better, he changed
the single whip, and I found the change very difficult until I had time
to practice, but then it was not difficult at all; but, until I had
time to practice, I resented the change and clung to the old
technique.
Is chess so different as to make these analogies useless? I think
not. John drew an analogy with tennis, but I have not had difficulty
learning new things in tennis, except when encumbered by my ego-driven
pride.
Now here is a possible advantage of books, at least for some of us. I
have worked through nearly 40 chess books in a year (not including
openings). I have a sense of the history of chess development, and I
have seen many different styles of play. I am also experimenting with
many types of play, and my goal is to have no clear style, to adapt to
my opponent as well as to the board. I don't want the rigidity of
being an attacking player or a defensive player. I want to know when
and how to attack as well as when and how to defend.
Now if I were to attach myself to a teacher, I might learn to be good
at some things, but not others. I would have to accept what he says
and do things his way. I might well be told to play this opening,
etc. Of course, to prevent such potentially bad instruction, I would
have to search very carefully for a teacher, but then where do I
search? It's not like martial arts: you can't check the yellow pages
and go visit schools.
I said "potentially bad instruction." By that, I mean dogmatism.
Although, if you are aware that you are getting only part of the story,
you can learn that part fairly well and move on to get a fuller
picture. Books give you a sense of the fuller possibilities so that
you can be aware that a particular my be teaching you only a small
part (and may be wrongly insisting that it is the whole).
>I think John has a gift for teaching.
I hope that I have not said anything to suggest otherwise. If John
were out here, I would seek him out.
Oh, yes, now I remember. I said that tutoring by Experts instead of
GMs might be more useful for novices. John said that bad instruction
can be hard to get out of one's system (and implicitly, I think, that
Experts are likely to teach inferior technique). Well, I maintain that
good teachers, GM or Expert, must teach inferior technique to
beginners. In a certain position, for example, the optimum strategy
might be to isolate the opponent's Queen Pawn, apply pressure, then
shift to create a weakness on the flank. But beginners are not ready
for such subtle ideas. So, the teacher will tell them to look for
unprotected pieces, back rank weaknesses, etc., etc. In short, the
common approach of teaching combinations first is an approach that
inevitably starts people off with an inferior method of thinking.
Later, when they know the combinations, "we" teach them about
positional play and tell them not to look for combinations all of the
time.
About Lasker. I think it makes a lot of difference that he was at the
top and that he was changing chess from the scientific, principled
approach to the psychological, interpersonal struggle. He was
discovering the concrete and dynamic.
But, if we are to continue this discussion, can someone provide
concrete examples of the bad habits that they have had difficulty
overcoming?
--Jim
Louis Blair
>years of his life learning, and the next 25 years unlearning
>what he had been taught.
In case anyone is curious, here is the actual passage that Emanuel
Lasker wrote in his book in 1925.
"Our education, in all domains of endeavour, is
frightfully wasteful of time and values. In Mathematics
and in Physics the results arrived at are still worse
than in Chess. Is there a tendency to keep the bulk
of the people stupid? For governments of an auto-
cratic type the foolishness of the multitude has always
been an asset. Possibly, also the mediocre who hap-
pen to be in authority follow the same policy. This
motif, it is true, is not predominating in Chess. The
bad state of education in Chess is due entirely to our
backwardness.
"Education in Chess has to be an education in inde-
pendent thinking and judging. Chess must not be
memorized, simply because it is not important enough.
If you load your memory, you should know why.
Memory is too valuable to be stocked with trifles. Of
my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to
forgetting most of what I had learned or read, and
since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease
and cheer which I should never again like to be with-
out. If need be, I can increase my skill in Chess, if
need be I can do that of which I have no idea at
present. I have stored little in my memory, but I can
apply that little, and it is of good use in many and
varied emergencies. I keep it in order, but resist every
attempt to increase its dead weight."
This was just one year after Lasker won the famous
1924 New York tournament, ahead of Cabablanca,
Alekhine, Reti, Tartakower, etc.
Tom Tedrick
of efficient memory usage has become more clear (and Lasker looks
like a prophet. Original article appended below).
Many people seem to think that education consists of cramming one's
head with information. Chess competition gives us a way to test
skill fairly objectively. Cramming one's head with book knowledge
seems to be less useful than emphasing practice, and analysis (both
chess analysis and self analysis).
I remember in the late 1970s I spent a lot of time studying rook
endings. I beat Gabriel Sanchez (2350) in a rook ending, and drew
Eugene Meyer (2400) in a rook ending 2 pawns down, but then I
missed a mate in 3 against John Grefe because I was so fixated
on finding a drawn rook ending (I drew him, a pawn down, but still
haven't lived down missing the Queen sac that led to the mate :-)
Studying too much can blind one to the obvious.
->>Lasker said something to the effect that he spent the first 25
->>years of his life learning, and the next 25 years unlearning
->>what he had been taught.
->In case anyone is curious, here is the actual passage that Emanuel
->Lasker wrote in his book in 1925.
-> "Our education, in all domains of endeavour, is
->frightfully wasteful of time and values. In Mathematics
->and in Physics the results arrived at are still worse
->than in Chess. Is there a tendency to keep the bulk
->of the people stupid? For governments of an auto-
->cratic type the foolishness of the multitude has always
->been an asset. Possibly, also the mediocre who hap-
->pen to be in authority follow the same policy. This
->motif, it is true, is not predominating in Chess. The
->bad state of education in Chess is due entirely to our
->backwardness.
-> "Education in Chess has to be an education in inde-
->pendent thinking and judging. Chess must not be
->memorized, simply because it is not important enough.
->If you load your memory, you should know why.
->Memory is too valuable to be stocked with trifles. Of
->my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to
->forgetting most of what I had learned or read, and
->since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease
->and cheer which I should never again like to be with-
->out. If need be, I can increase my skill in Chess, if
->need be I can do that of which I have no idea at
->present. I have stored little in my memory, but I can
->apply that little, and it is of good use in many and
->varied emergencies. I keep it in order, but resist every
->attempt to increase its dead weight."
->This was just one year after Lasker won the famous
->1924 New York tournament, ahead of Cabablanca,
->Alekhine, Reti, Tartakower, etc.
John Pope
Remember just because John is a good chess player and a good chess
teacher does not mean that everything he says is right, or right for
all people, or right for all people at all times in their development.
It doesn't? Oh darn ;->...
Seriously, this is a good point - there are always postings to r.g.c
asking what THE right thing is for them to study or THE right opening
to play, etc. I think the right answer is "there isn't any one right
thing - it depends" (on skill, talent, goals, etc). Evaluating the
level, etc, of a questioner is too time consuming, though, so people
usually say things like "like positional chess? Play the Caro-Kann!"
or some such.
That said, there is one technique (aside from playing against people
better than you) that I think IS good for everybody regardless of
playing strength (unless it's absolute beginner), experience, etc. and
that is to play through games by strong players and guess the next
move. This works well with both unannotated and annotated games (a
combination of the two, with about 70% unannotated, works best for
me). Though I think this technique works better the better you get,
anybody can benefit from it (provided you really DO it [i.e. don't
peek]). Note that I didn't say that everybody should study this way
all (or even most) of the time, or that it should be the main thing
you spend time on at any particular moment. I do think that it's
almost impossible NOT to improve using this technique, which
incidentally provides a built-in remedy against studying too much of a
particular phase of the game.
>Lasker said something to the effect that he spent the first 25 years of
>his life learning, and the next 25 years unlearning what he had been
>taught. I think getting the garbage one has learned out of one's head
>is much more difficult than acquiring it.
This may be true for many people. After years of academic theory,
however, I find that the hardest thing is to actually believe in
anything. I am not even satisfied that I know what it means for
something to be true; I know several theories of truth, and I know
which ones I find the most attractive, but I don't know which one to
accept, if any.
Isn't this the type of state Lasker was working against?
I am also experimenting with
many types of play, and my goal is to have no clear style,
?? Interesting...
to adapt to
my opponent as well as to the board. I don't want the rigidity of
being an attacking player or a defensive player. I want to know when
and how to attack as well as when and how to defend.
Your assumption seems to be that that means no clear style. If so,
why do you think this? Kasparov, for example, certainly knows these
things and clearly possesses a style.
Well, I maintain that
good teachers, GM or Expert, must teach inferior technique to
beginners. In a certain position, for example, the optimum strategy
might be to isolate the opponent's Queen Pawn, apply pressure, then
shift to create a weakness on the flank. But beginners are not ready
for such subtle ideas. So, the teacher will tell them to look for
unprotected pieces, back rank weaknesses, etc., etc. In short, the
common approach of teaching combinations first is an approach that
inevitably starts people off with an inferior method of thinking.
I don't know why you have these ideas of how GMs must teach and
students must learn, but they seem worth questioning to me. For
instance, I don't see why a student should have to wait until some
artificial level is reached before trying to understand positional
ideas unless they have really just started playing.
Later, when they know the combinations, "we" teach them about
positional play and tell them not to look for combinations all of the
time.
Er, who's this "we"? I sure look for combinations all the time. I also
don't find this whole "positional"/"tactical" dichotomy very useful -
the vast majority of strong moves have positional and tactical
components, even if the tactics are only psuedo-forcing such as "if I
go there, he'll double my pawns".