SonofPearl's Chess Blog

Congratulations to Vishy Anand

2008-10-30T21:08:00.003Z

What a fantastic match! I'm simply in awe of Anand for the great job he did. Much respect to Kramnik as well for scoring a win when all seemed lost and for hanging in there as long as he did.

It was my pleasure to live blog the entire match at Chess.com. After relaying every single move of every single game I feel like I played Anand and Kramnik myself! I have a new respect for how tough it must be mentally and physically for the players.

If you would like to congratulate both players on the match, then why not leave a message on the e-cards for both players that have been sponsored by Chess.com.

I think either Topalov or Kamsky will have a tough job parting Anand with his title!

Chess Ratings: A Necessary Evil?

2008-09-07T14:17:00.002Z

Rating (noun): a classification according to order, rank or value ... an estimated value of a person's position (From Chambers 21st Century Dictionary).

Why do we have chess ratings? Shouldn't arguments over who is the best player be settled by direct competition across the board, not by a statistical calculation of probabilities (and I say that as a mathematics graduate).

I would not want to take anything away from Magnus Carlsen, but does the fact that his current live rating of 2791.6 is fractionally higher than Vishy Anand's of 2790.6 actually mean anything?

The official "Elo" rating system, named after it's inventor, the Hungarian professor Arpad Elo (pictured), is a relatively recent phenomenon, only being officially adopted by FIDE in 1970. The chess world managed perfectly well without ratings before then, so why have them at all?

Of course, I'm partly playing devil's advocate here. Ratings are obviously useful to provide a benchmark to compare players' relative strengths, especially if they have never played one another before. But in a one-on-one adversarial contest like chess, surely ratings are wholly inadequate to describe the multitude of factors that come into play when two individuals with a variety of strengths and weaknesses face each other in combat?

It is my contention that chess ratings are being overused, misused and even sometimes abused, when they represent nothing more than a mathematical statement about players' past results. They assuredly do not prove that one player is better than another - only the estimated probability of the outcome of a game between them.

To contrast chess with another one-on-one contest, no-one cares if a boxer is ranked more highly than his adversary. It all comes down to what happens on the night. When standing toe-to-toe in the ring, 'rankings' count for nothing. So why are chess ratings given so much significance in comparison? In 1974, George Foreman would undoubtedly have been 'ranked' the best boxer in the world, but when Muhammed Ali floored Foreman in the eighth round of the Rumble In The Jungle, no-one questioned Ali's right to be known as the world champion.

Perhaps the answer is that being the 'world champion' and 'ranked the best in the world' are not always the same thing depending on the sport or game in question. Does it matter if the 'world champion' is not ranked number 1 in the world? If ratings matter so much in chess, why do we even have a World Chess Championship at all? Why not just declare the highest ranked player to be the world champion and save FIDE the expense of organising a world championship cycle?

This should never happen and with good reason. When Anand and Kramnik face each other in Bonn in October, they will be continuing a long chess tradition stretching back over a century with few interruptions, whereby a new champion must overthrow the old champion in a direct contest to prove his worth. Good luck to both players, and may the best (and not necessarily highest rated) man win!

What is the best form of tie-break?

2008-08-03T13:54:00.002Z

Sometimes things are just too close to call...

The US Women's Chess Championship in May this year ended in controversy as the title was decided in an 'Armageddon' tie-break match.

The Chief Organiser of the event, Tom Braunlich, recently posted an interesting examination of the different types of tie-breaks possible and suggested firming up the guidance regarding tie-breaks in the FIDE (and USCF and other national) regulations, which are presently pretty thin. His article is here.

I generally like the ideas presented, but I must admit to being baffled by one suggestion:

Two-Game Sudden Death - The entire time available for the playoff is used to play no more than two playoff games. One player is given white (by any method of chance). If the first game is decisive, the winner wins the playoff. If it is drawn, another game is played, using the same colors, in which black will have draw odds.

Why would anyone want to be Black in these games? I find it hard to believe him when he says that when he canvassed opinion among GM's they were evenly split on whether they would prefer to be White or Black under these circumstances.

However, it's a well thought out article and worth a read (although he's clearly touchy about the criticism that the US championships received as a result of the Krush-Zatonskih playoff).

What do YOU think is the best method?

Making chess friends

2008-07-13T17:41:00.004Z

I have had the pleasure of corresponding with many fellow chess players, both in the blogosphere and at specific chess sites, but today was the first time I actually got to meet one of them in the flesh.

Waldemar is from Amsterdam in the Netherlands and is currently visiting my country, Wales. He was kind enough to take time out of his holiday with his friend Erik to meet up with my wife and myself in Cardiff for a chat and a drink. He is a qualified chess teacher and it was fascinating to hear what he had to say about the game. If you are interested, then check out his Chessedelic blog!

It was great to be able to make a friend through chess, and it got me wondering how many other chess bloggers have met up as a result of first discovering one another online?

Tell me your stories... :)

Moved home...

2008-07-09T18:03:00.006Z

Hello world! Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated! My blog here has been dormant for a number of months, but I'm still posting semi-regularly at my Chess.com blog which you can find here.

I also play correspondence games at Chess.com and contribute regular news items. It's free to join, so if you're not already a member what are you waiting for? :)

If my ramblings are not frequent or hardcore enough to satisfy your chess urges, then try visiting Chessedelic.com, which is an excellent blog with improvement tips and video reviews of top chess games!

Also well worth a visit is GM Boris Alterman's blog which can be found here.

That's all for now, but watch out for more posts here - I might not abandon this blog completely after all!

Chess improvement v Chess enjoyment

2007-12-30T16:30:00.000Z

Are chess improvement and chess enjoyment mutually exclusive? Improving one's ability at any game of skill takes dedication, study, practice and application. Where's the fun in that? I'm half joking here of course - I recognize that if I enjoy chess (which I do) then learning to play it better should also be enjoyable and motivation shouldn't be a problem.

So why is it a problem?

I believe that improving your chess ability requires much harder work than most patzers (myself included) realise, and are prepared to undertake. I don't think I'm lazy (not more than average, anyway) and I'm prepared to work hard at something if I feel it is worthwhile. The question is - is studying chess worthwhile? It is after all just a game - a beautiful, beguiling, compelling frustrating, uplifting game. Life is short and chess study takes a lot of time.

If the aim of life is to be happy, is there really any point in spending so much time on a game which can produce as much frustration and disappointment as happiness?

It may sound like I'm writing this on the back of a bad loss, but I'm on a winning streak at the moment (I'm playing correspondence games at chess.com). No, this post has been prompted by the impending new year and thoughts of resolutions.

I've decided not to make any resolutions, about chess or anything else. I will continue to try to balance enjoyment and study of chess in my leisure time and hope to end 2008 understanding chess a bit better than I do now.

My blogging friend Dan Scoones has suggested I finish reading 'The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played' by Chernev (one of the many books I haven't finished). So that's what I'm going to do - and continue playing as much as possible - given the time available!

My Brain Hurts!

2007-12-02T17:54:00.000Z

I've written about just about everything except my own games for a while now, so I figured I'd better put that right. My latest completed correspondence game at chess.com (3 days/move) really made my brain hurt.

I've never really settled on a defence to d4, and my response this time was the Tarrasch defence. Playing over the game, it looks much more comfortable a win than it really was. I won a pawn on move 20 due to an oversight by my opponent, but despite this stroke of luck I never felt comfortable during the whole game and was very relieved to eventually get the win.

Constructive criticism of my play is welcomed - and expected!

Btw - what is the latest technology for posting chess games on blogs these days? I would like something which allows me to add comments. Thanks.

I've Started so I'll Finish

2007-11-23T16:00:00.000Z

One of the failings of the way I study chess is my extremely bad habit of starting reading a chess book and never actually finishing it. The list below is just a sample of the titles which grace the shelves of my bookcase, but which I have never actually finished.

Pawn Power in Chess - Kmoch
The Development of Chess Style - Euwe & Nunn
Understanding Chess Move by Move - Nunn
Chess Exam and Training Guide - Khmelnitsky
Tal - Botvinnik 1960 -Tal
Chess for Zebras - Rowson
50 Essential Chess Lessons - Giddins
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played - Chernev
My Great Predecessors Vol 1,2,3 &4 !!! - Kasparov

Phew! Just imagine how good I might be now if I'd bothered to finish that lot. They are all, as far as I can tell from my partial readings, excellent books.

So why did I stop reading them? Is it because I have the attention span of a gnat? Partly. Do I get halfway through the book and then get distracted by something shiny? Ooh, pretty...

No, I think the reason I stop reading chess books is because I lack commitment. I'd like to be a better player, but I'm not prepared to do the hard work necessary to improve.

So I'm going to make a promise here now to myself in the presence of my fellow bloggers, that I will damn well finish at least one of those books before next year. I'll start tomorrow. Honest.

Those of you easily distracted by shiny things, like myself, might like to try the games near the bottom on the right hand side of my blog. They are: Spelling Bee, Match up, Hangman, Sudoku and another one without a name (does anyone know if it has a name?). While you're all distracted by them, I'll be improving my chess!

The Art of Losing

2007-11-13T09:04:00.000Z

(With apologies to Josh Waitzkin)

After many years of diligent study I have achieved mediocrity in a number of fields and recently had an epiphany when I realised that my skill lay not in any one area, but in that I was in fact a master of the Art of Losing.

It is chess where my mediocrity has blossomed to it's fullest extent and I will focus here on the lessons that I can pass on to others who may wish to follow in my footsteps.

The most important thing to focus on if you want to master the Art of Losing is not focusing on whatever you are doing. Sounds contradictory eh? That's Zen for you! Avoiding meditation can help with this - stop focusing your mind and instead let it wander onto any old nonsense - I find that cars, beer and sex do the trick.

Now let's apply this to chess. Say your opponent has just moved so it's your turn. What thought process do you go through to decide on your next move? Difficult to explain isn't it? The problem is with the word "process". It implies a clarity of thought that you must strive to avoid if you want to master the Art of Losing.

So the correct method is to avoid asking productive questions like:

why did my opponent play that move?
what is he/she threatening to do know that he/she wasn't before?
did his/her move meet the threats I made with my last move
do I have any useful checks, captures or threats

Instead let your mind drift merrily wherever it wants. When you become more accomplished at this technique you will find that 90% of the time you are playing chess, you are not even thinking about chess at all, but instead pondering the great mysteries of the world, like:

If the probability of a flipped coin landing one side or the other is 50/50, does that mean that it is impossible for the coin to land on its edge?
As men get older, why does our body hair stop growing on our heads, but starts growing everywhere we don't want it to?
If you lose a game of chess in a forest, but no-one is around to see it, is your rating affected?

This carefully cultivated unstructured thought has truly made me a master of the Art of Losing. I hope these insights can help you too...

Does chess make you happy?

2007-10-29T20:10:00.000Z

Does playing chess make you happy? Perhaps the answer might not be as obvious as it first appears. When we win, then of course we are happy; but when we lose we are quite the opposite. Chess can be bruising to the ego and for most of us there is always someone better than you who can give you a painful lesson.

So is the joy of winning greater than the pain of losing? Dan Heisman believes that the ability to tolerate losing "just right" is one of the three important attributes that it takes to become a good chessplayer. To find out the other two see the article!

Tolerating losing "just right" means not caring so little about losing that you "don’t care and keep making the same mistakes, but also not caring so much that you are paralyzed by losses. The best is in-between: the ability to keep losing while simultaneously learning how not to repeat your mistakes."

So do you think chess increases the net amount of joy in the world, or is every joyous winner balanced out by a miserable loser? Is chess a nil sum game of happiness or does just playing the game make you happy, regardless of the result?

What sex is your brain?

2007-10-14T11:21:00.000Z

Being male is supposed to be an advantage when it comes to chess. Or, more precisely, having a male brain. Male brains are, on average, better at dealing with logical and spacial problems, whilst female brains are better at verbal skills and judging emotion.

If you would like to try a series of tests to assess whether your brain is better at traditionally male or female activities, then try the fascinating link here.

Me? I did well in the angles test (19 out of 20), and the test where you have to mentally rotate a 3D shape and match it to others (11/12), which should mean that I have some of the skills needed to be a good chess player. I'll have to find another excuse for why I still suck...

Why not take the test and see how you score? You can't do worse than my 5/20 for empathy. Does that put me into sociopath category?!!

Chess and Intelligence

2007-09-29T17:28:00.001Z

One of the few social advantages of being a chess player is that people assume you must be intelligent. Chess players, of course, know this is simply not true. I've known plenty of players who could barely string two words together and were so dumb they probably needed an instruction manual to go to the toilet.

Me? Well, I'm a mathematics graduate, an accountant, and have an IQ of around 130. So I'm not exactly Einstein (pictured) but I can tie my own shoelaces. However, as a chess player I'm utterly mediocre. Chess requires a very specific set of knowledge and skills, so there is no guarantee that being smart will mean you are a budding Kasparov.

Of course, the opposite also applies. You don't have to be smart to play good chess. This is the big secret that the non-chess paying world doesn't know. You are all sworn to secrecy - I mean it! If word ever gets out it will be the end of one of the few perks we chess players have. So if someone asks you if chess players are smart, just answer in the affirmative and misquote Descartes, "I think, therefore I play chess".

The Silver Knights

2007-09-23T21:14:00.000Z

The traditional and outdated image of chess players to many of our non chess-playing friends is one of old gentlemen sitting stooped over, facing one another over a chess board in a crowded and smoky room. This caricature has never really been true, but is even less likely to represent reality in the modern chess era where you are more likely to meet an 8 year old playing chess than an eighty year old.

However, the despite the cult of youth in today's chess culture, with top players being regarded as past it by the time they are in their 30's (let alone in their 70's like the great Viktor Korchnoi, pictured), the grass roots of the game are filled with players of all ages. The nature of chess as a mental game renders age immaterial as two minds battle their ideas across the chessboard.

I recently came across a link to organisation called The Silver Knights (hat tip to Robert Pearson). The Silver Knights are a charitable organisation dedicated to helping prevent Alzheimer's Disease by teaching and playing chess with senior citizens. Research has shown that mental activities like solving crossword puzzles, playing a musical instrument or playing games like chess or bridge has a measurable effect on reducing the incidence of Alzheimer's.

I think the Silver Knight's organisation is well worth supporting and if anyone living in the US would like to offer their help, I'm sure it would be much appreciated and rewarding. For those not in the US, I'm sure a purchase of their merchandise or a donation would be welcomed.

I'm looking forward to playing chess as I grow older, and hope that it helps keep my mind active. Use it or lose it! Sadly, my attempts at playing a musical instrument are even worse than my chess!

SonofPearl, Reloaded!

2007-09-23T17:41:00.000Z

Hi everybody I'm back!

You know how it is when a musical artist splits up from their partner and their next release gets called their ‘divorce album’ because they can’t stop moaning on and on about it (a.k.a. the Phil Collins syndrome)? Well, this post is my ‘moving house’ post! There won’t be much chess content (no Zugwang or Zwischenzug), but lots of opportunity for Schadenfreude (no that’s not a chess term!)

Well, my wife and I moved house on the 10 August and our new house (pictured) is really nice. I haven’t yet got around to making one of the bedrooms into a ‘chess den’, but I hope to do that eventually after we’ve finished ‘settling in’ (btw – why, when you’ve moved house, does everyone ask if you’ve ‘settled in’ ok? What does it mean? How will I know when I’ve finished settling in? I lived in my last house for 7 years and I never did manage to remember which light switch was for the hallway and which was for the landing).

Anyway, moving house is regularly cited as one of the most stressful things that you can do, and they’re not wrong. The moving day itself went quite smoothly, but we had to pay off a £40 debt that the previous owner (hereafter known as ‘The Swine’) had run up on a meter, in order to get the electricity to work. It turned out that the £40 debt was just the tip of iceberg as The Swine was about to have the house repossessed! Arggghh! I live in dread that bailiffs will knock on my door in the near future and I will have to politely explain to them (as they flex their muscles menacingly) that I am not The Swine and persuade them not to take all my possessions away!

To add insult to injury, The Swine hadn’t cancelled his telephone service so I had to make endless mobile phone calls to his and my telephone service providers just to get my own phone line – it took 3 weeks! All the while I continued getting phone calls from his creditors. Never mind, once I had my own phone line, I ordered broadband again (I couldn’t just transfer my old service for some bizarre reason – don’t ask!) and now I’m back online at last – hooray!

During the month I spent without the internet I discovered the simpler pleasures in life like reading, long walks, the sound of birdsong … oh, who am I kidding? If it hadn’t been for chess I would have gone completely crazy!

It's good to be back and I should be able to blog again more regularly from now on.

Normal service will be resumed...eventually

2007-09-09T15:15:00.001Z

Apologies for my prolonged absence. I moved house on 10 August but haven't yet managed to get an internet connection at my new address. It took 3 weeks just to get a phone line, for crying out loud! Argggh!

Anyhow, I have been promised an internet connection by the 14th September, so I hope to start blogging again regularly after that.

Thanks for your patience - I'll be back asap.

Ban the chess simile!

2007-07-29T17:58:00.001Z

I'm an easy-going kind of guy. It usually takes a lot to upset or annoy me. For instance, my 12 year old washing machine has just broken - a few weeks before I am due to move house. I managed to brush it off with a shrug and a laugh (it helps that my very nice mother-in-law has offered to wash my clothes).

There is, however, one thing which is guaranteed to get my goat and quickly have me foaming at the mouth like a lunatic: People using chess as a simile for totally inappropriate things.

Don't know what I mean? A few examples from a quick Google search should help (I'm not making these up).

* Marketing is like a game of chess
* An appellate brief is like a game of chess
* Writing is like a game of chess
* Beating hackers is like a game of chess
* Relationships are like a game of chess
* Federation Cup Tennis lineups are like a game of chess
* Contemporary Warfare is like a game of chess
* Fighting Cancer is like a game of chess
* The Soccer U-20 World Cup is like a game of chess
* Californian politics is like a game of chess
* 'Cold Reading' by psychics is like a game of chess
* Fencing is like a game of chess
* Search Engine Optimisation is like a game of chess

Argggggggh! None of those things are like a game of chess - and that's just a small sample of some of bizarre things that people compare to chess. Why do people who wouldn't know a rook from a bishop think they understand chess well enough to compare it to something else?

It seems that chess is usually used in this way to indicate something that is strategically complex and requires careful thought. Fair enough, but that doesn't make any of them actually like chess, does it?

This sort of lazy thinking drives me crazy, and I reserve special scorn for those who have some experience of chess and yet STILL use chess as a simile - you know who you are. I say it's time to take a stand - ban the chess simile now!

End of Rant. Normal service will be resumed in my next blog post!

Chess from a different perspective

2007-07-29T17:55:00.001Z

I have many so many faults in my chess that's it's hard to know where to start to improve. I think that identifying a fault is often the easy part; correcting it can take a lot of effort and practice.

Fortunately, There is one area in which I think I have made some progress and it concerns what the Scottish GM Jonathan Rowson calls "Egoism" in his book "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins".

By egoism, Rowson means being so caught up with your own grandiose plans and ideas that you forget to consider what your opponent might be trying to do. He (or she) will have plans too and if you don't take steps to counter them you are likely to meet a sticky end!

I tend to do this myself and there are two things which have helped me counter it. Firstly, after every move my opponent makes I ask myself, "What is the devious blighter up to now?" I try to put myself in my opponent's shoes.

Secondly, I try to look at the board from the other side. Playing on a computer screen you can just flip the board around; playing OTB you can walk behind your opponent and have a look. It's surprising what a difference this simple act can make. A position can look very different when seen from your opponent's perspective. You may see ideas for both sides that were not obvious from your own side of the board.

I hope this tip can help others as it has helped me. That's one deadly sin down, just 6 more to go!

Women-only chess events - Good or Bad?

2007-07-15T10:42:00.000Z

The 2007 US Women's Chess Championship is starting tomorrow in Oklahoma and should provide some interesting chess games. However, I must admit to having mixed feelings about women-only events in chess.

Lots of sports have separate tournaments and competitions for women. Indeed, there are many contact sports where men and women would never compete with each other due to their physical nature e.g. American football, or rugby. Other sports are non-contact sports but still require a degree of physical strength which tends to give men an advantage that no woman, however talented, could overcome e.g. tennis or golf.

So where does that leave other sports that do not require physical strength? Sports like snooker, pool, poker, darts and chess?

There is no reason, in theory, why women should not be able to play these sports as well as men. So why should there be women-only events here as well?

Clearly, there are some short-term advantages in terms of publicity; but is this outweighed by the long-term disadvantage of settling for competition among women only, instead of playing - and beating - men?

I think Judit Polgar (pictured) has shown that in order for women to reach the top levels of chess, they should compete with men and not be sidetracked by the allure of big pay-days in better publicised women-only events.

Of course, that's easy for me to say. I'm not struggling to earn a living from chess; but isn't it ultimately the only way to succeed in a male dominated sport?

Richie and Eddie play chess

2007-07-14T20:37:00.000Z

Fans of the British TV series "Bottom" will enjoy the clip below. Warning - some profanity!

My Chess 'Den' Dreams

2007-07-12T18:15:00.001Z

Thanks to my financial prudence and legendary miserliness I will shortly be moving from my current cramped 2 bedroomed home to a considerably bigger 4 bedroomed house. As my wife and I don't have any kids, there should be plenty of room for both of us to use for whatever we want.

Up till now, when I've played chess at home, I've had to squeeze into my spare bedroom, a.k.a. the study, the gym, the junk room etc. In our new home, I should be able to use one of the bedrooms as a chess 'den'. I'll be able to have all my chess books in their own bookcase and my chess board and pieces on permanent display ready to be used.

I'll just have to persuade my wife that a chess den is a good idea. A while ago that might have taken some serious coaxing and pleading on my part, but since my wife recently developed an interest in chess, it shouldn't be a problem!

So where do YOU play chess?

Chessdom

2007-07-08T18:59:00.000Z

Chess fans who enjoy surfing the web (and if you are reading this, that's you) are truly spolit for choice when it comes to quality websites for the discerning player. Another terrific new site which has recently come to my attention is chessdom.

Despite having a name which sounds like a bizarre chess related fetish, this is truly an excellent site with lots of interesting content. News, interviews, player profiles, event coverage, photos, videos, annotated games and lots more.

A particularly nice feature is the live annotation of games from current events. I have just finished watching their coverage of Anand v Topalov in the final of the rapid tournament in Leon and it was very well done.

Definitely a website to grace any chess fan's 'bookmarks'.

I love chess, but...

2007-07-01T20:43:00.000Z

I love chess. "How much?", I hear you cry. A lot - honest. Most of my spare time is taken up with chess which makes what I am about to admit all the stranger.

I like to read my chess books (I've got about 50 so far, and plenty of space in my bookcase to fill with more) and spend lots of time contributing to websites like chess.com and the Chess Exchange. I'm now also teaching my wife to play chess and any impartial observer would surely attest to my fascination with the game. However, I have a dark secret that I must come clean about.

I love chess, but...

...I hardly ever actually play chess any more. No, really! I enjoy reading instructional chess books and writing blog entries and forum comments about chess, but I swear as I type this blog entry right now, I can't honestly remember the last game that I played. Was it a month ago? Perhaps. Even longer? Maybe.

Does anyone else have the same problem? What's wrong with me? Am I simply addicted to learning and have forgotten that the point is to actually play?

Have I become afraid of losing? Perhaps - a bit. I'm aware that when I used to play online at Playchess.com I would play a few times until I won a nice game and then would stop so I could end my playing session on a winning note.

But I don't think that's the whole answer. Can anyone suggest a way to cure my "Caissa Interruptus"?

Teaching my wife to play chess

2007-06-30T06:46:00.000Z

I have been happily married to my wonderful wife Catherine (pictured) for 7 years and although she loves me, she doesn't share my passion for chess. As a result, she has tolerated my addiction with (mostly!) good humour but has never expressed any desire to share in my hobby - until now.

A few days ago, and quite out of the blue, Catherine decided that she needed a hobby and since I play chess, she thought playing chess would be a good idea since I could help teach her and we would share an interest.

I wasn't sure if she was really serious or not, but the next day she asked me when she could have her first lesson. I was happy to oblige and have now given her two lessons and she seems to be enjoying it. She's also reading The Immortal Game (which I recommended) to learn a bit about chess culture.

I'm not sure how to react to this turn of events. I feel like I might be about to become a living example of this humorous story! Has anyone else ever taught their partner to play chess? If so are you still together after the experience?!

Is playing chess good for you?

2007-06-16T15:23:00.000Z

The great Benjamin Franklin (pictured) was a big chess fan. His essay on the 'Morals of Chess' is well known. A flavour of his opinions can gained from this quote: "The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions."

Does playing chess really help develop transferable skills that can be used outside of the 64 squares? Great claims have been made for chess as an educational tool in more recent times but does anyone know of any peer-reviewed studies which have shown any measurable effect?

Among other things, I have read claims that chess can:

improve concentration
develop logical reasoning
improve planning skills
develop better calculating skills
improve memory
help improve attention span and develop patience

If all this is true then surely it should have a measurable effect that can be proven? It should also be introduced onto the curriculum in every school so that children can reap the rewards of regular chess play and study.

This seems to be the aim of an organisation called America's Foundation for Chess, but I can't find any hard evidence to back up these claims on it's website.

On the other hand, George Bernard Shaw thought that chess was 'a foolish expedient for making idle people believe they are doing something very clever, when they are only wasting their time.'

So who is right? What do you think? Is chess good for you or is it a waste of time?

Chess Gamesmanship - a confession...

2007-06-08T19:07:00.000Z

I have something to confess. I wish to seek forgiveness from the Goddess of chess, Caissa. My actions as a foolish youth have troubled my conscience for over two decades and I feel that I the time is right to prostrate myself before her and apologize to my unfortunate opponent.

When I was an impressionable young lad I read an excellent chess book called 'Chess for Tigers'. Unfortunately, I choose to interpret one part of the book in an unfortunate way. I no longer have a copy of the book, so I'll paraphrase as best I can - "A chess tiger doesn't care about making pretty moves or even playing the best moves - all he cares about winning".

With this advice fresh in my mind I reached a position in my next game where I hatched an evil plan to trick my opponent. Unfortunately I have lost all the gamescores to my earliest games, so I have simulated the position in the diagram above.

I moved my rook from e1 to c1, waited a few moments and then proceeded to shake my head, "tut" audibly at myself and generally put on quite a show for my opponent.

It was a contemptible trick to play. I was pretending that I had overlooked that I was leaving my pawn on e3 undefended. After a few anxious minutes and more head shaking and moaning from myself, my opponent (an elderly female player, which makes it worse for some strange reason) fell straight into the trap and took my pawn on e3 with her Queen.

At least I had the decency to feel guilty. I even considered not playing my next move, but after a minute or so I went ahead and played Bxh7 check, discovering an attack on my opponents Queen, ensuring victory. I went on to win the game, but the nagging sense of guilt remained. Even my team-mates were ashamed of me. "I won too", one of them gloated, "and I didn't need amateur dramatics to do it!"

So here I am now, many years older and hopefully a little wiser and I would like to publicly apologize to my opponent for what I did. I hope that my opponent and Caissa will forgive me!