It is Saturday Open Forum. What would you like to discuss? Corus? Upcoming Linares? The ugly and destructive politics of the USCF? FIDE? The forum is yours!
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
- About Us
- Chess Improvement
- Chess Puzzles
- Chess Research
- College Chess
- General News
- Home
- Major Tournaments
- News
- Polgar Events
- Privacy Policy
- Scholastic Chess
- SPICE / Webster
- Susan’s Personal Blog
- Track your order
- USA Chess
- Videos
- Women’s Chess
- Contact Us
- Daily News
- My Account
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
Susan,
What is your advice for our son who seems to be stuck around 1000 for the last year and is working everyday on puzzles and openings etc. He really wants to improve and seems to be getting frustrated.
How may tactic puzzles should he be doing a day and should he be maybe playing more tournaments with higher rated players?
Thanks……..
chessmom
I’m not Susan but I think I can answer that, Chessmom.
1. Children usually develop in leaps; they’re stuck at one level and then suddenly jump to the next. So there is nothing unusual about this.
2. Studying openings is not very useful at his level. Tactic puzzles, on the other hand, will help a lot.
3. He should do as many puzzles as he likes, unless it is his bedtime.
Wrong !
http://www.jmrw.com/Chess/Tableau_echecs/
pages/096.htm
What is the tv show about? Is this a reality show? Like Beauty and the Geek? (That show just had those ever loveable geeks doing a painting, too.)
On another topic, I notice that the guy who wanted you to sign his statement (which you agreed to sign) is now out there on the USCF Forums after you to sign yet another statement on the same thing. – That together with an ultimatum that unless you do, he won’t consider voting for you. (He said the same to the rest of the candidates, too.)
I still think that your agreeing to sign that statement was a bad decision. I know you were just trying to be nice and agreeable and all but you should be issuing your own statements on your own schedule instead of dancing to other people’s tune. This incident just shows that no matter how hard you try, there’s just no satisfying some of those people.
could someone tell me about the kramnik match at the moment?, i can see the game its just that im not sure who is winning or if its equal…so could some one please tell me?
If our knees bent the other way, what would chairs look like?
What statement? Is that Wayne Praeder? If yes, then he’s been doing that same shtick for many years and Susan is probably familiar with it.
“could someone tell me about the kramnik match at the moment?, i can see the game its just that im not sure who is winning or if its equal…so could some one please tell me?”
looks like a draw to me. but aronain keeps tryin’. i think the bishop on b6 looks good for aronian.
Ok, I’ve been out of the competitive chess arena for several years now, so I’m very out of touch with current events in this arena. What’s the deal with politics and the USCF?
Topalov’s going for the kill :)))
Sorry about that double post earlier. I think that it was a computer glitch.
Something important came up this week that affects one of Susan’s core principles and the application thereof. What do we do about extremist non-chess political speech? We don’t want to attack the individual involved BUT what do we do when an important negative fact is brought up?
I don’t want to violate any of Susan’s rules against attacking people, so let me present a hypothetical.
Let’s say I was running for the Executive Board of the USCF. Someone discovered that I had once said about Hitler and the Holocaust on the Jews, “The Jews had it coming.” The attacker documented his information. In other words, assume that I had really said this in public.
Now what should you do with this information? A couple points to consider:
1) This is non-chess. Shouldn’t we tolerate all political views?
2) Aren’t we against all the negative attacks? This disclosure certainly would qualify as a negative attack on me.
That said, isn’t the question of having political extremists on the Board a valid one for chess players to consider? Wouldn’t my accession to such a position damage the USCF?
So is it proper to bring this up in a chess election campaign?
Opinions on the USCF forums are divided on this one. My own (real life) opinion is that yes, political extremism is a valid concern. The person involved should at a minimum pledge that he will recognize that such views are highly objectionable to the majority of society and in respect to the organization he helps lead, he should curb his statements while on the Board.
Footnote: The person is not on Susan’s team.
chessmom, the answer is doing a lot more of tactical puzzles, basic endgame training, middlegame strategies, etc. Opening is the least important at this stage. My son Tommy is 1564 and he barely knows openings.
Jack, I am for practical ideas and actions to help the USCF. I am not for more bureaucracy and double standards.
I have a 30+ years illustrious career in chess. I have proven to be a person with high level of honesty, integrity and morals. What does that piece of paper do? We already have a code of conducts for EB members and we have board members breaking these codes daily. And what did we do about it? Nothing! And now we will add more codes? This is not what the USCF needs.
Let’s think about this for 1 second. Small companies will attack or try to compare themselves to the big and successful ones.
So far, the same people who ruined the USCF for years attack Paul, Mikhail, Randy and me the most. So what does that mean to me? It means that I made the right decision asking them to join me in reforming the USCF.
Let’s talk about another real practical point? Please identify another candidate who is better than Paul Truong in Chess Marketing, PR and Promotion or Randy Bauer in finance or Mikhail Korenman in working with all groups?
As I said, I am a practical person. Theorists do not become World or Olympic Champions. These sick people are too busy talking about what “could” be wrong with a candidate instead of what incredibly skills the candidates can bring to the table. This is why the USCF went down the drain for so many years. If people want the same old things then vote for others.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Hi Susan in your opinion what would Bobby Fischers lifetime 2785 ELO be today with ratings inflation involved?
Thank you John
Chessmom:
It is very common for kids to get stuck around 1000 and it is great that you are involved enough to start wondering what he needs to do to get past that point. I’ve seen a lot of kids/parents quit at that point and/or switch coaches without really understanding what the issue is. Susan obviously is the maven here both from her own experience and from teaching her children and I think her advice is right on target. In terms of tactics, when my son was stuck at that level, his coach would look at his games and then assign him lots of tactical puzzles based on the mistakes he made in those games. E.g., he missed a pin, he would have to do 3 pages of pin puzzles. The next week, he missed a double attack, 3 pages of double attack puzzles. Also, does he play on the ICC? If not, that is a good way to get a lot of chess games against higher rated players without going to tournaments.
Good luck! (And please consider joining the USCF as a family membership so that you can vote in the upcoming election for the candidates who will bring the USCF into the 21st century!)
Another chess mom
I have been reading some of the posts on the USCF Forums and getting angrier and angrier. Part of me thinks they should just shut down the USCF issues forum because I don’t really see anything positive going on there and the negatives are overwhelming. The most recent outrageous offense is by (no surprise here) Sam Sloan. When asked to comment on Randy Bauer’s candidacy he made a very negative statement that I don’t want to repeat because it could be libelous (i.e. legally actionable). Two people responded and demonstrated that Sam Sloan’s claims were absolutely false (including one of Sloan’s sometime supporters who goes by the name “artichoke”). But where are the consequences for making demonstrably false statements? I don’t want Susan wasting her time on that forum but someone has to hold Sloan accountable for his reckless lies. (Suffice it to say that I was going to vote for Randy Bauer anyway but now will do so with even more enthusiasm.)
tfk said…
˝Hi Susan in your opinion what would Bobby Fischers lifetime 2785 ELO be today with ratings inflation involved?
Thank you John ˝
tfk:That’s more math trend/chessmetrics question than the one appropriate for asking Ms.Polgar.
Answer:Transferred rating of 2785 ELO of his time,corresponds with ~2860 ELO today.
Jack,
Surely everyone’s views can be made known (by themselves and by their opponents) both in chess and non-chess context.
Then the voters vote and certain people are elected. Some people don’t like the successful candidates, that’s tough but democratic.
If they vote for Sam Sloan, too bad, it will pass with time. If they vote for Hitler, well then you have to consider your obligation and right to form a militia bearing arms to revolt against tyranny …
Susy, hi i was wondering if more than discuss you can tell us more about your trip to England, the film your making, etc,
Also i would like to know how can one contact your siste sphie for chess lessons and why isnt kosteniuk at Corus? do u know?
well thats all for now, break a leg!
also congratualations on your son Tommy , he has 63 points of Elo more than i, although there´s more in chess than ELO points but its cool!
I bet soon not only tommy but all polgar´s next generation will pass my miserable 1501 pts, jeª
Dear Concerned about the USCF Issues Forum,
Please reconsider your decision on several counts.
1) There are several positive things being done there. Note the discussion on Scholastic Chess. Retaining young people into their adult years is an important issue. Also note the thread on internal controls and audits. We must acknowledge that there is a real concern out there regarding waste, fraud, and abuse. There is an alternative to public attacks and that is professional audits. If professional lawyers, CPA’s, and others are willing to donate their time, we could do some real good restoring the credibility of the USCF in these areas.
2) This is OUR USCF, not just theirs’. Please go back and take another look at these threads and then join in the discussions. Help us to take it back. We need to follow Susan’s leadership of respect, civility, and professionalism in our posts. Susan can get on the Board and make and enforce rules but she can’t do everything herself. She will need people like you and me to participate and raise the level of the conversations.
3) Susan is right to not participate in the forum. She must operate at a different level than the rest of us. As soon as she or Paul appear, everybody wants to attack her. But we’re nobody’s so it’s not the same for us.
4) It is a sacrifice and distasteful to go onto that forum. And sometimes we stumble and fall and say dumb things. But good causes require sacrifice. And just like in chess we learn from our mistakes. The important thing is to go in there and try to make a difference.
If everybody reading these words would just make just one post a week we could overwhelm all of the negative attacks with Susan’s message of positive change.
I just finished reading Hikaru Nakurama’s interview by Jerome Hanken and it was very favourable what he said about Susan Polgar!
I can’t see the connection between becoming a World Chess Champion and anything else. (Unless you mean hard work with the help of dedicated parents.) Using that assumption Putin will have no chance against Gary Kasparov in the political future of russia since he is not a comparable chess player. And then there is Bobby Fischer who no doubt ought to make a good world leader, CEO or USCF president?
hmmm…
Should we promote more Fischer Random Chess??
Jack Le Moine:
You make some good points and I will admit that there are a few regular posters (including you) who actually write thoughtful and cogent posts — ppwchess and gregory come to mind as well as others. But when it starts getting into that “he said/she said” stuff, my eyes glaze over and I want to get out. But I agree that the more normal people who post on there, the higher the level of discourse. I will consider posting. The topic of retaining scholastic players is one of particular interest to me (as the mother of a scholastic player who is starting to play in adult tournaments) and I thought that ppwchess (Polly Wright, I think)’s post on this subject raised several interesting points.
Thank you “another Chessmom” and Susan and anonymous ~ your advice is “VERY” helpful on the stuck at 1000 project!
chessmom
Thank you Concerned. I get disgusted at the trash I read on the issues forum at times. I try to indulge in topics regarding issues, not personalities. I have not committed to the 4 I’ll ultimately vote for. I want to hear about issues, not about dirty laundry,
I’m just disappointed that more have not responded to my post, or participated in the discussion of retention. For many years I was frustrated by the number of girls who stopped playing after elementary school, but I realize that it’s pretty much across the board, girls and boys.
I teach chess to kids, albeit younger ones who may or may not play in tournaments, but I run many scholastic and adult tournaments. I see the overlap between adult chess and scholastic chess. I also see the kids who play in my tournaments year in and year out, and the ones who stop once they’ve left for a school with no program.
Not every child who plays in a tournament is going to stay with it from elementary school to young adulthood. After all, kids are exposed to many things as a child. Some things remain a part of the child’s life for a long time, and some things are a passing thing. We’d like to think that chess is not a passing thing for each child that is introduced to the game. The reality is, kids try lots of stuff and chess may end out being one of the “been there, done that” things that they drop.
However for those that show an interest beyond the scholastic scene, it’s important to channel that interest in a positive direction. I must admit at times I dread playing the under rated kids, but my ego is not so fragile that I go to pieces if I lose to them. Also as an officer of a small chess club that is struggling to increase membership it is important to me to make both child and parent feel welcome at the club. The child may be the potential member, but who’s the transportation chief, and financier? Yep, Mom or Dad. The child may be oblivious to the vibes from the adult members, but the parents know the score. Without Mom and Dad being on board that child is not going to be a member of one’s chess club.
This time I write to retire my words saying “It is a lost of time to try to save the USCF.”
I am very surprised, every day more, to see than there are more people worried in solving the things, when the attitude that I have always seen of chess community is very different:very passive.
I am so surprised that I do not know what more to say, anyway do not enter to debate on what you are going to do with the bear: first is necessary to hunt it and it will not be easy.
Not theorical debates please!You have a lot of real problems to fix!
To Chessmom:
I had not a clear idea on openings(well,maybe 4 or 5 moves and the general plan:no more)while i was rated under 2100.For me the important points on chess were strategy and endgames and i was a very sucessfull kid(i have a lot of scholastic thophies to prove it)
Actually i need openings,because i play with very strong opponents(next round one rated 2315)but i agree with Susan: your son does not need it,yet.
With chess puzzles he will enjoy the game and improve his problem solving skills!
Chessmom, your son could also try the tried and tested technique of playing lots and lots of games. Especially timed ones, blitz or slow. If he’s only 1000 then it doesn’t really matter too much how stronger his opponents are, the important thing is that he gains chess playing experience. Also he should solve the tactical puzzles in his head, without moving the pieces. Tactical ability is great, but if he isn’t thinking carefully at the board he won’t be able to apply it. So you could try playing some games against him yourself and asking him questions like ‘what am I threatening’ etc. Finally he should go over his games afterwards and try to figure out the important mistakes. And another chess mom’s idea of playing on ICC is a very good one, he’ll have fun with that. But people tend to play a little differently when faced with a computer screen, than while sitting before a real chessboard.
ive been playing computer programs like shredder on 2800 elo and gnu 5.07 on my 3 ghz machine. i think the best way to improve is play games. then go over where u make tactical mistakes. for example when you play a engine like shredder take back moves that get punished and see which move is better. i did this with checkers and got a very high elo and was able to defeat the top engines in checkers and players on internet sites. i switched to chess around six months ago. ive been using the same teqniques of taking back moves and looking for interesting lines of play. this seems to work for me. also hard tactical puzzles where no one helps you and you just stare until u see the answer seems to work. if you dont really enjoy chess youll never be good at it because playing should be fun. i believe fischer said the most important thing is to really enjoy chess then the work wont seem so hard. tactics, strategy, end game, openings, comprise all of the game. learning basic principles of deflection ,pins,forks, skewers. understand counter moves when your piece is attacked that being defend the piece, move the piece, counter attack or put a piece in front. learn passed pawns, pawn walls,pawn structures such as backwards pawns ,double rooks, open files and when to fill them with rooks. when to castle either queen side or kind side. know the counting principle of the need to have as many pieces defending a piece as attacking that piece or else its just a hanging piece. also know how to spot weakness in your opponents like isolated pawns. to improve like anything get the fundamentals down before you try anything advanced.
wolverine
Jack, now I doubt your sincerity. First you blatantly campaign for Susan, telling us how an incident [definitely] affects Susan’s core principles, then you add a small disclaimer at the end. Further, the one-two (you-Susan) posting order doesn’t look good, either. Some would look at it is a dead giveaway.
jack le moine said…
“…Something important came up this week that affects one of Susan’s core principles and the application thereof. What do we do about extremist non-chess political speech? We don’t want to attack the individual involved BUT what do we do when an important negative fact is brought up?
I don’t want to violate any of Susan’s rules against attacking people, so let me present a hypothetical.
Let’s say I was running for the Executive Board of the USCF. Someone discovered that I had once said about Hitler and the Holocaust on the Jews, “The Jews had it coming.” The attacker documented his information. In other words, assume that I had really said this in public.
Now what should you do with this information? A couple points to consider:
1) This is non-chess. Shouldn’t we tolerate all political views?
2) Aren’t we against all the negative attacks? This disclosure certainly would qualify as a negative attack on me.
That said, isn’t the question of having political extremists on the Board a valid one for chess players to consider? Wouldn’t my accession to such a position damage the USCF?
So is it proper to bring this up in a chess election campaign?
Opinions on the USCF forums are divided on this one. My own (real life) opinion is that yes, political extremism is a valid concern. The person involved should at a minimum pledge that he will recognize that such views are highly objectionable to the majority of society and in respect to the organization he helps lead, he should curb his statements while on the Board.
Footnote: The person is not on Susan’s team.”