I received an e-mail from a person who asked for advice on how they should go about improving their game. What I found interesting about this e-mail is the person stated that they hated chess but they couldn't stop playing. They also pointed out that they always lose when they play. What I think they really meant was that they hate losing, because I believe that they wouldn't continue playing if they honestly hated the game. I think we've all been there before. We've all had those days or weeks where we just can't seem to win a game. We fall into traps, leave pieces hanging, or blow a won game at the end. So I started thinking about why this happens to us. The obvious answer is that we suck, but that's a cop out answer and I don't believe that that's the case for most of the losses we suffer in this chess slump.

Once you start losing games you start expecting to lose games. I think that most of the losses in a chess slump can be attributed to a lack of confidence. We start playing with that nagging voice in the back or heads and that we're going to screw it up and lose. So how do you get rid of that voice? It's actually pretty simple, you just get back your confidence. I realize that that's the kind of answer that Dr. Phil might give, and that's not going to fly with this audience. You want meaningful advice so here it is. When I would tutor people in physics or mathematics what I noticed was that they were usually afraid or uncomfortable with the subject. They lacked a confidence in their ability to solve those types of problems. To correct this, what I would do is go back to the fundamentals. I did this for two reasons: First, you can't expect to solve hard problems if you can't solve the easy ones. Secondly, solving fundamental problems allows you to regain confidence in your ability to solve these types of problems. It's exactly the same with chess. The advice I gave this struggling chess player was to go back to the fundamentals. Here a copy of my response to his request for help:


The main reason I posted this was because I am currently in a slump and writing this e-mail reminded me of how to get out of it. Sometimes by helping others you really help yourself.

This maybe my last post before Christmas so please have a safe and wonderful holiday.

This post is more of an inquiry than a statement, but I've been considering different things that I can do to help improve my results at tournaments. One of the things that I've noticed at the last couple tournaments I was at is variety of people listening to music while they play. Now I have never done it myself, but with so many people doing it I was curious if it helped.

When I think about myself at tournaments I realize that I am easily distracted and maybe listening to music will help me get into a rhythm, excuse the pun. I was thinking that perhaps a constant ordered sound is better than the abrupt surprise noises that inevitably pop up in the tournament hall. While this theory makes sense to me I have no proof or experience to back it up. This is where you come into this post. I am hoping that the people who are reading this will share their experience or opinions on this matter with me.

When I was thinking about this topic I quickly discovered that I had many questions to consider before I decided if this was the right move for me. The most important and obvious question I had was what's the best type of music that you can listen to while playing serious chess. The first thing that occurred to me was classical music. Serious music for a serious game, but I have no idea if this is right for the majority of people. I have to guess that this is up to the individual and probably everyone will say something different, but I wonder if one type is more popular than another.

One of the other things that occurred to me about this topic is that I can't think of a single GM that listens to music while they play. Is this maybe because it's a bad practice that we should avoid? Or maybe I am just not aware of them listening while they play. In any case listening to music doesn't same to be as prevalent at the elite levels of chess.

So again I ask that you share with me your thoughts on this topic. I'm sure a few of you have tried it and can let the rest of us know how it's worked for you. I doubt this will help improve my game a lot, but every rating point helps.

Please leave your comments on this topics by clicking on the comments link below.

Sorry for not posting for awhile, but work beckons and since it still pays the bills I must go when summoned. Until I am able to provide you with the content you have grown accustom I hope this video will hold you over. This is very funny and I hope you are entertained. Enjoy!

A week or so ago I wrote an article on achieving chess goals. I talked about three steps to reaching your goals. The third part covered being accountable to your goals which I believe is important to staying focused. This article will expand on that step by giving another suggestion on how I'm going about achieving this step.

After I wrote that article I received an e-mail from a chess player in the UK. Suggesting that we send each other emails on a regular basis. This I thought was a great idea. This kind of symbiotic relationship is exactly what step three was all about. He and I will monitor each other's progress as we both strive to achieve our chess goals. By committing to send each other progress reports we were in fact committing to our individual chess goals. This idea is no different than any support group for other endeavors. The reason support groups are so popular is because they work. People gain encouragement and inspiration when they know others care about their progress. Unfortunately the term support group has a negative connotation so I've decided to call this getting a "Chess Buddy".

There are a few ways you can go about finding your own "Chess Buddy". First you can try someone that attends your local chess club. This has the advantage of being face to face and it probably means you can train together for tournaments in your local area. You can also try a friend or family member that is also a chess player. These two options are probably the best scenario for reaching your chess goals, but they require that you have a local club or friends that can provide meaningful feedback about your game. If you're like me these options are prohibited because of schedule or the lack of competent buddies. So I introduce to you the internet as a resource to finding your own "Chess Buddy". This sounds like a very hard task, but in reality I think it is fairly easy. By doing a quick google search or going to the chess newsgroups you will be able to find people from around the world that you can approach about becoming your "Chess Buddy". Most chess players are helpful and want to share their knowledge. I think you will not only improve your chess game, but you may even make a new friend.

There is one thing that you must remember, and that is that a "Chess Buddy" is a two way street. When you enter into this relationship you must be willing to give as much as you receive. You're "Chess Buddy" is not there for the sole purpose of improving your game. You have to be willing to help your buddy with their game as well. Remember your "Chess Buddy" has goals too, and his goals are just as important as yours.

Another fact that you need to be aware of is that it's not necessary to find a person that is a stronger player than you to be your buddy. It's probably a good idea to try and get someone that is around your level, but this is absolutely not necessary. You'll find that helping someone improve their game helps you improve yours as well. When I was in college and helped people with calculus or physics I was amazed at how much I was learning myself. By explaining fundamentals to people you become more comfortable with the information yourself. Being comfortable with fundamental chess knowledge can only help improve your game.

I suggest that you leave contact information in the comments section of this article if you're interested in finding your own "Chess Buddy". If you can't find a buddy let me know I'm always looking for new friends. Maybe we can start our own chess group full of "Chess Buddies".

Most of us are aware that the match between Kramnik and Deep Fritz is going on. Within the chess community this is still fairly big news, but it doesn't seem to have the media attention that Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue match generated. Now I'm aware that Deep Blue had the backing of the juggernaut PR department that worked for IBM, but there's still some fundamental difference between the matches that makes this event less exciting. It probably has to do with the participants. Kasparov understood how to interact with the media. He was and still is the face of chess. And who doesn't know who IBM is. The Kramnik match is probably also hurt by the fact that this has already been done before.

In any event, the current match got me thinking about a DVD that I purchased about a year ago. "Game Over" covers the match between Kasparov and Deep Blue. When this match took place in 1997 I was finishing up my last year of college so I didn't have an opportunity to follow the games as closely as I would have like to. When I saw this DVD for sale at a tournament I was at I had to purchase it and I'm so glad that I did. For those of you that are unfamiliar with the match or have just forgotten here's a little background:

"The computer system dubbed "Deep Blue" was the first machine to win a chess game against a reigning world champion (Garry Kasparov) under regular time controls. This first win occurred on February 10, 1996. Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996, Game 1 is a famous chess game. However, Kasparov won 3 games and drew 2 of the following games, beating Deep Blue by a score of 4-2. The match concluded on February 17, 1996.

Deep Blue was then heavily upgraded (unofficially nicknamed "Deeper Blue") and played Kasparov again in May 1997, winning the six-game rematch 3.5-2.5, ending on May 11th, finally ending in game six. Deep Blue thus became the first computer system to defeat a reigning world champion in a match under standard chess tournament time controls.
The project was started as "ChipTest" at Carnegie Mellon University by Feng-hsiung Hsu; the computer system produced was named Deep Thought after the fictional computer of the same name from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Hsu joined IBM (Research division) in 1989 and worked with Murray Campbell on parallel computing problems. Deep Blue was developed out of this. The name is a play on Deep Thought and Big Blue, IBM's nickname.
The system derives its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It is a massively parallel, 30-node, RS/6000, SP-based computer system enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips. Its chess playing program is written in C and ran under the AIX operating system. It was capable of evaluating 200,000,000 positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version. In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer, capable of calculating 11.38 gigaflops, although this did not take into account Deep Blue's special-purpose hardware for chess.

The Deep Blue chess computer which defeated Kasparov in 1997 would typically search to a depth of between 6 and 12 ply to a maximum of 40 ply in some situations. An increase in search depth of one ply corresponds on the average to an increase in playing strength of approximately 80 Elo points."

Source Wikipedia

Now that you have the background information here is a review of what you'll find on the DVD. The DVD starts with the second match in 1997. So Kasparov is coming off a sound defeat of Deep Blue a little more than a year before. He approaches the match with an attitude that this is to advance computer science and help add to the overall body of knowledge for mankind. This attitude would change drastically as the match progressed.

As Kasparov participates in this match the friendly atmosphere of the first meeting has changed from being very accommodating to Kasparov's request to an almost hostile environment. IBM is in control of everything and they are not afraid to flex their muscle. Kasparov starts to suffer from the psychological warfare that the IBM team starts to use after he loses Game 2. All of his requests are denied. This feeds Kasparov's paranoia that something is not on the level with the IBM team. He starts to worry more about how the IBM team is cheating than about the match. For all intensive purposes the match is over after Game 2.

The bulk of the documentary covers this belief by Kasparov that the IBM team did not play within the spirit of the match and that they perhaps even cheated, but there are many other parts of this film that I think are worth mentioning. The rise of Kasparov to dominance in the chess world is covered and gives a great context for non-chess players of just how dominating he was. There are also interviews of media and chess players that were involved in the match that give a different perspective to what was going on.

There were a few things that I didn't like about this DVD, but I think they are annoying at worst. For some reason the documentary has a person whispering occasionally in the background that is just barely audible. This caused me to turn the volume on my television up very loud. When the regular sound of people talking came back I was blasted by sound. The second thing I found distracting was the video of some of the shots. It was a little shaky and they used strange angles for no apparent reason.

Overall I thought this DVD was well worth the price. It covers an area of chess history that I find fascinating. It points out a fact that I forget about and that is that chess matches comprise much more than just the games. It's a struggle in our minds that starts before the first pawn is pushed.