Questions And Answers

Previous Questions and Answers

Last edited: 06/02/02

After reading various chess newsgroups, I came to realise that chess fans are often very curious about the life of a professional chess player, but they seldom have their questions answered. Perhaps this page can help you to get answers to some of the questions which you have. I will try to reply to any chess related question as best as I can - feel free to email me at ababurin@iol.ie or baburin@hotmail.com

Somehow questions continue to pile up in my mailbox. I can’t answer all them, so please don’t take offence if you don’t hear from me for a good while or at all. Here comes a new batch of questions:

Question 15, from Brian Sumner (USA):

"I have a question for you: how important do you regard the study of classical games rather than the study of modern games?  Do you feel that it is vital for improving players to spend some time specifically on the games of those great masters from the past, such as Rubinstein, Capablanca, Alekhine, etc.?  If so, how much time and how many games are to be recommended?  Has chess theory progressed so much that the games of these players have less value for modern players than those of contemporary GMs?"

I think that everyone should study classics, at least while growing up as a player. Missing games of the giants of the past is inexcusable. Their games should a preferable source of information compared to modern games for someone who wants to improve in chess. This is for two main reasons: 1) games by old masters tend to be more instructive 2) usually there are good notes to them available. How much time to spend and how many games to see is up to every individual. I know some GMs who review games of old masters - both in order to get some new ideas and out of curiosity. Of course, chess theory progressed a lot since, say, Lasker’s time, but that does not mean that one can or should do without Steinitz, Nimzowitsch and the likes of them.

Question 16, from Craig Sadler:

"I'm wondering how do you practice chess?  Do you practice against strong computer programs, other grandmasters, etc?  Also, do you play correspondence chess at all?"

I believe that analysing games and positions is the best way of practicing in chess. So, I analyse my games, particularly my losses. Discussing chess and analysing with other strong players also contributes to the general understanding of the game. I don’t play against computers to train myself, as that would be pointless and not interesting in my opinion. But I use computer while analysing. I do not play correspondent chess, apart from one game I played via e-mail a year ago or so.

Question 17, from Carlos Luis Guaimare (Venezuela):

"Hi sir: I hope I will not disturb you. But I follow you in internet with a lot of interest play over a lot of games, study opening I some times I play in tournaments but my ELO is still in 1870 and I do not know how to improve. Any suggestions?"

Probably my answer is banal – study your games to find what you weaknesses are and then work on them. Be critical to yourself. Work with a stronger player or a trainer, if that’s possible. Analyse games of grandmasters, particularly when they are well annotated (explaining ideas, etc.). Choose a model player (a hero) and follow his games, which might make your study a bit more interesting. With that work you should surely do better than 1870 Elo.

Question 18, from Niall Murphy (Galway, Rep. of Ireland):

"Hi Alex. My Question is as follows: some writers say play offbeat bring your opponent into areas where they are less assured. Many GM comments suggest this is why they won a particular game etc. Others (I am thinking of Yermolinsky, Nunn and Watson) recommend playing the main lines, as then you are standing on the shoulders of giants. Yermo says that that is how the big dogs do so well - they get better structure, etc. Yet, I see Nigel Short playing b3 in the Sicilian, Svidler playing unusual opening against GK, Morozevich playing the Vienna and Chigorin. What is your opinion?"

Well, this is really up to you what to play, for you have freedom to choose. Play main lines if like to study (known) opening theory and the resulting positions appeal to you. Play offbeat stuff, if you feel adventurous enough and have your own ideas (not that it’s impossible to find new ideas in the main line, but it’s harder there). Simply copying GMs may not work – surely Morozevich knows much more about the Chigorin Defence that any amateur or even professional player, who might decide to play the same opening. You may need to do a lot of independent research before you’ll get good results in the offbeat openings. But on the other hand, that work might bring you dividends for a long time.

Question 19, from Nico Verheyen (Belgium):

"Hi! I'm a 14-year old boy from Belgium. I have a very strange question about chess and I hope you can answer
my question soon! I have some serious troubles in my chess life. I love the game very much, but my style doesn't improve: my FIDE rating is 1623 (but still underrated because I beat 2000+ and it's typical for Belgium). I study chess every day for about 5 hours and in a weekend I study it 14 hours in total. I only have one problem like I said before - I don't improve! Do you think I use a wrong way of studying chess? Do you think I use the wrong books? Or is that I'm just too stupid to play at a higher level? I really hope you can help me! I would like it if you can tell me how you study for chess, when you were 14 - 15 years old (like me), because I feel terrible at the moment! Bye, Nico."

Man, you sound desperate! First of all, relax - I had to erase so many exclamation marks in you message. Too many! Once you calm down, you might be able to work out a program for improving in chess. Of course, you are not stupid, but it looks like you are not getting an adequate return on the time you put into chess. 5 hours is a lot. With that you should make a very good progress, if you know what to do while studying. It’s like climbing up the ladder. You can climb very energetically and for a long time, but if you ladder is set against the wrong wall, you still might get nowhere. So, seek professional advice – get a coach and tell him how you study chess. Maybe you study wrong books too, but to say more I’d need to know which books you read. When I was 14, I played against strong players, had a good coach and read lots of good chess books – game collections of famous GMs, tournament collections, etc. I read chess magazines and analyses many interesting positions, which I found there. A lot of time went into analysing my own games. I hope this gives you some clues. Good luck!

Question 20, from Jorge Azedo:

"Dear Sir! I have a question: when, after I play a chess game, I go and annotate it, I never know what to do. I would appreciate it if you would tell me what steps I should take when annotating my games. Thankfully, Jorge Azedo."

First of all, play through the game once or twice and try to find out where there were critical moments in the game. This is when the assessment of the position or plans change: somebody makes a mistake or comes up with a risky move. After you’ve located those moments in the game, go to analyse positions and variations, surrounding them. You can also analyse your play in different phases of the game and in different situations (time trouble, important game, etc). See how GMs analyse and annotate their games, for example Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, Larsen and Kasparov. Lean from them - this can be both instructive and enjoyable!

Question 21, (name withheld)

"Hi! I am writing a research report on Chess for school.  I wanted to include a little information about obtaining titles such as IM and GM, but I am unable to find much about it on the Internet. I found your web page and I was wondering if you could help me, since it says that you are a Grand Master so you would probably know something about it.  I was just wondering exactly what different titles there are, and how a person would obtain them. If you could help me with this, it would be greatly appreciated (also, it would be great to cite you as a reference!). Thanks!"

I cannot give a precise answer, but basically in order to become a Grandmaster, one needs 3 norms (could be 2, if made in closed or all-play-all tournaments) with a total of 30 games (24 in case of norms, made in closed tournaments). Each norm is a 2600+ performance in a tournament where you must meet 3+ GMs and the average opposition of 2400+. There should be players from a few different countries in the tournament among your opponents, unless it’s an official championship. When you make those norms and reach FIDE rating of 2500+, FIDE awards you the title. The story is similar for IMs, but they need to show 2500+ performance, have a minimum average rating in the tournament of 2251+ and have their rating of 2400+, when they have the norms.