Leaving aside the momentary diversion of the previous post, my posting schedule has been halted for almost 3 weeks now. I have been working on this post during that time, but it's not a spectacularly long or profound effort. I just wasn't sure what I was writing.
A few weeks back, I wanted to argue that English chess has a great cultural problem, 'the cult of the amateur'. Essentially, a studious approach to chess is somehow frowned upon, leading lots of people who take it seriously to pretend otherwise, creating repressive peer pressure. Hence my opening preparation isn't common-sense but a delusional get-rich-quick scheme, and my chess hero Botvinnik is the epitome of un-coolness compared to natural talents like Capablanca and Tal. Perhaps that argument isn't entirely wrong, but in the end I just wasn't comfortable making it. There has to be room in chess for people who really are less serious about it. Besides, I am approaching things from the angle of someone who is trying to improve, and that is the part of chess that is really amateurish. So after tearing up the whole of the original post and starting again, I have refined my case.
In history, there is a saying that 'demography is destiny,' and I have done bits and pieces of research on the chess population: we face an impending crisis with the passing of the Fischer generation. Using my academic year (1993-94 births) as a case study, I found fascinating and horrifying results. In July 2012 there were 110 active players; by July 2014 there were 39. There is a strong demarcation line above which most continue, but below which almost everyone stops - and it's rising, from 150 in 2012 to 170 two years later. The mean grade of the group is now 155, up from 133 (also the national mean.) Similarly, U-25s in the Surrey League are concentrated in the top division (albeit only 12.9%), dropping down to 1.7% in the fourth division. The point is that for younger generations the social side of chess has no appeal; ability at chess does. If we want competitive chess to survive on a noteworthy scale, the road to improvement has to be a smooth one. But is it? Hardly.
In Amateur to IM, Hawkins strongly propounds using training games with a friend to learn theoretical endgames. Alternatively, if you have no friends, then you can play against Fritz. But I found this pointless when trying to practice KP vs K - the computer quickly sees that it can't stop the pawn, so just moves the King off to the other end of the board to have more air once it promotes! Hawkins' idea is hardly new, but when did someone last suggest it? Everyone ends up operating alone, which is not the most helpful. My biggest improvement has been at Sutton GS, when I could play a 200 every lunchtime, and my final term at Bristol, with a 250-strength FM at every match and social. And that was plain osmosis, not formal coaching.
To make things worse, we work on the wrong things. I can do no better than quote Hawkins: "Although a cliché, we must state that in general players spend far too much time on studying openings. It is usually caused by laziness, as it is much easier to memorize a few moves and convince yourself you have learned something, rather than spend the time thinking." Most of my repertoire has come from preparation for specific opponents, where this is especially true. But everyone knows all this, and we still do it! There is no signposted path to follow, and in that case all we can do is either guess or follow the path of least resistance. Even with this blog, it took me years to start spotting the weaknesses in my play, and I still make plenty of wrong turns. Adult improvement strikes me as a big opportunity for the ECF, but there is an apparent belief that only juniors have any interest in it. For someone who first played seriously at 16, this is quite a handicap.
Part of my unease with this post is that it's a mix of observations and complaints, rather than a cogent argument. So I should try to relate it to my current series. Perhaps we really are all overly-modest introverts, or perhaps we really do have a dysfunctional national federation. Whatever the reason, the climate for improvement isn't good. Even though most of us (thankfully) only play as a hobby, if something's worth doing it's worth doing well. And in chess you have to work to stand still. So you probably know more people studying chess than you think. We work better together, so we should make use of this 'secret' resource. It need not be with anything as formal as training games. Recently, the University A-team has gotten into the habit of retiring to the SU Bar on home nights and looking over all the games from each match, which works very well. Or you could start a blog! This one only works because people are willing to challenge my ideas. Whatever it is, the key is to show some initiative.
With the approaching end of the grading period, I will soon be doing my usual review, and I have more tournament games at Downend to come (plus a rapidplay in mid-July.) Before that I would like to wrap up this little series, with a few final learning ideas and some thoughts on the need for patience.
No comments:
Post a Comment