« 64 squares, 32 pieces and two minds | Main | What's the best move? »
August 23, 2005
Patterns of Nature against the Arrangement of Chess
I think that Arpad Elo, the mathematical genius who invented the ELO chess rating, says it best: The process of rating players can be compared to the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind.
I'll take that a bit further and say that chess strength is only relative to the position. Even powerful grandmasters like Garry Kasparov or Veselin Topalov can break under pressure and make disastrous blunders -- even against weaker players.
But why is this, you may ask?
The answer lies in our inability to fully grasp the position, even if we think we understand the position, and veer to a different path that leads to a losing position.
Every chess beginner always questions this. Why is it that weaker players "see" less of the board, than stronger players?
For now let us say that our brain is designed in such a way that enables it to see and recognize patterns. When strong players recognize a particular configuration of the pieces on light-and-dark squares, they are able to make use of that part of the brain that processes the "correct" move in a given position.
In chess there are two kinds of players - positional and attackers. Positional players can overcome a strong attack, while at the same time moving closer to a winning position - one strong move after another. However, attackers can create complications in order to shake the opponent's will to defend, when losing a mere pawn can be decisive.
One of the things I've realized in chess is that no matter what the position is - good or bad - there's almost always a "way out." In a losing position you may catch your opponent off-guard and make a surprising sacrifice that lets you get away with a draw.
However, the board can be turned (pun intended) and find yourself winning only to find yourself losing the game on the next move.
Chess is like tug-of-war, but it's also like "a cork bobbing up and down."
Posted by rene on August 23, 2005 1:51 PM
Comments
But isn't it true that one must never retreat in chess? And thus the attacker is the stronger of the two types of players? Or maybe a postitional attacker?
Thanks for the interest. - And thanks for telling everyone about our chess classes for kids 5-12 Monday at the NHFPL, 133 Elm Street. New Haven, CT 06510.
Will you be joining us Rene?
-john.
Posted by: john at September 26, 2005 10:52 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
