This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
First Moves / Chess stories from around the world


• An LP is more likely to lose by making one bad move, but is also more likely to pursue a strategy of creating a small advantage, positional or material, in the opening or middlegame, and then trying to shepherd that advantage to the end, where that small advantage usually looms larger.


• The more interesting games I played were against LPs like me, with fewer


• While of course it depends on the sit- uation, to put a knight on the outer rim


draws—but maybe this means I DO think like a conservative, since a game ending in a draw often contains “symme- try” between the black and white pieces/squares. This is something I’ve always been scared is true ...


of the board is usually considered an unconventional move since, on it’s face, the knight is weakest on the rim and can influence more squares when in the cen- ter. In the games I collected data on, LPs were more likely to put a knight on the rim. Also, LPs of every skill level were more likely than CPs not to castle (a defensive move with the king) which is also seen as “unconventional.” And LPs are more likely to make use of their rooks early in the game, and moving them vertically early, which goes contrary to the conventional ideas about the flow and physics of chess.


• Finally, some very abstract observa- tions, perhaps too vague or situation-


Adding to this point, the CPs I played multiple games against I noticed tended more than LPs to play only one or two opening sequences of moves (established examples: the French opening, the Eng- lish opening ...) and look for situations/ threads that are more familiar and well- trodden to them.


specific to have any value, no matter how much data I collected: CPs tend to look for more “numerical” situations. Example: where a large num- ber of pieces are focused on one square. CPs tend to spend more time thinking about the center of the board versus the sides, while LPs tend to focus more on issues like “balance” and “symmetry/ asymmetry” having to do with the white squares versus black squares, whether in the center or not. CPs are more likely to maintain a perimeter, real or implied, and opt to win or lose based on whether their oppo- nent can find a hole in that perimeter.


LPs are less concerned with trying to deceive their opponents as to which side of the board they will eventually castle to, and LPs tend to bring out their kings ear- lier, instead of keeping them behind walls, seeing the kings as useful pieces for sheparding pawns toward queening, in spite of the risk. LPs are better at seeing the big picture,


creating longer, more elaborate threads more moves ahead in time, while CPs are more detail-oriented. They prefer to “multi-task,” coordinating a greater num- ber of shorter plans.


CONCLUSIONS


In all the above categories, the differ- ences between CPs and LPs became more pronounced as their rating/skill level increased. The same was also true for those who identified themselves as “VERY conservative” or “VERY liberal.” The self- described “centrists” I played/questioned often reminded me of the games I play against the computer—which isn’t an insult, as unless something changes, soon there will be no doubt left that com- puters are superior to humans in chess. Next, computers will probably be writing the music we listen to, movies, sonnets ... with no human involvement. So, knowing the tendencies discussed


in this study, can you get an advantage against a given player, especially a new opponent, if you know their political affil- iation? Of course, it’s awkward to broach this with a stranger in person. Even on the web, I get many people basically telling me to mind my own business! I haven’t cross-referenced my data with any personality inventories like The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or IQ tests, or DNA or neuro- logical info ...


I would like to tell you that any of my observations of LPs correlate less with individuals who possess negative person- ality traits, traits symptomatic of mental illness or “The Seven Deadly Sins”—but I can not do that yet. For now, you must draw your own conclusions.


Disclaimer: This article is one writer’s opinion and is not a scientific study as he has made clear. This does not reflect the opinion of Chess Life or the USCF. Comments and rebuttals are welcomed at letters@uschess.org.


FACES ACROSS THE BOARD


By AL LAWRENCE JAMES


MENNELLA NEW JERSEY 34 U.S. Opens


At the very first round of his first ever U.S. Open, he was paired against GM


Arthur Bisguier, who heads the list of most Opens with 51. “I was up on the stage on board two, with staff running to update the wallboards and spec- tators gawking,” Jim said. “I prayed—not to win, not to draw, but to not make an idiot out of my- self. I lost, but the game was later published as one of Andy Soltis’ key positions.”


ISABELLE MINOOFAR


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA


Founder of Beverly Hills Chess Club


Just nine years old on a


family vacation from Tehran, she didn’t know anything about politics or the fall of the shah and cried when her dad told her she could never go home again. Now a mother, entrepreneur, chess teacher, and chair of USCF’s women’s committee, she values chess as a character- builder for kids. “I want to see chess recognized as a true sport of the mind.”


THOMAS GREGER


OREGON


Chess helped pull him through


As a high school football


>>> Put your favorite Face Across the Board in Chess Life! Send the name, reasons, and your contact info. to faces@uschess.org.


10 November 2012 | Chess Life


player, Tom was diagnosed with a normally fatal sarcoma. Recovering from intensive radiation and chemotherapy, “Chess was an outlet; it made the long days short.” He beat the odds, playing in the 1987 U.S. Open in Portland. But his old enemy re- turned. “In 2007, I was given less than a year un- less I had an experimental operation. I thought about how I did better in chess when I was aggres- sive. I had the operation and it was successful.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76