Hi Paul,
First and foremost, may I say Mega Mega Thank you! For responding at all.
Better late than never, and, thus far, you're pretty much the first.
In no particular order, then, may I share some observations about your
comments. You are right, of course. The best way to acclimate to playing
face-to-face is to play face-to-face. However, having accumulated a good bit of
experience in the various venues, there isn't as much difference between
playing over Skype and playing face-to-face as you might think. When you factor
in the reality that, at our national tournament, at least, it is completely
likely that you could have someone writing down your moves and even hitting
your clock if you felt so inclined. So, with the possible exception of the
background noise of having other games going on in the same room, there really
is little difference. And, quite frankly, given the level of background noise
I've encountered in some of my skype calls, the tournament room would be
dramatically quieter. Otherwise, the TD would be jumping on the heads of the
offenders.
I'd also like to talk about the problem of telegraphing your thoughts to your
opponent. As Al noted, at our national tournament at least, there had better
not be any players there with enough vision to take substantial advantage of
such telegraphy. However, as a vereran of many mainstream tournaments, here is
what I have done to work around this problem. And it can be a problem. The
board and set I usually take to a mainstream tournament has non-staunton design
pieces. I got it years ago; the pieces are all the same height, and the board
is small enough that I cover it fairly well with my hands. It is more
difficult, though not impossible, for someone to read my thoughts by watching
my hands. Also, Bobby Fischer taught us to look at every square. It's sound
advice. For us mortals less capable of playing a game entirely sans board, you
need to make sure you know what all of your opponent's pieces are up to. Don't
limit yourself to analyzing your mainline plan. There is also the adage: "When
you think you've found a good move, take a couple minutes and look for a better
one." You may or may not find one, and your opponent may or may not be able to
savvy out which move you're actually considering. Besides, if your opponent is
spending all his time looking at what you're considering, he's not doing his
own analysis, and he's just as likely to miss something as you are--if not more
so. Finally, I tell anyone I talk to about chess, "Don't make your move based
on surprise value alone. Always assume that your opponent knows exactly what
you are planning." The battle is exactly this: you are trying to make moves
that build and solidify your position and mount threats against your opponent
regardless of what he or she does. Every now and again, in my little chess
class for beginners, we play a "think out loud" game. The whole point of that
is that our moves should be based on the fact that they are sound, hopefully
the best on the board. Go ahead and let your opponent read your mind--if he or
she can. Your task is to find moves that will promote your position despite his
best efforts.
I don't know when our national tournament was last visited by a competing
master. Certainly, there has been no such at any of the tournaments I've
participated in. So, your observation about our national tournament being
rather more like a club tournament is pretty right on. Except for the fact that
we get better participation in the events conducted via skype or email. (Glum
grumble) And here's an observation that only now comes to me: of the eight
people who participated in the 2014 national, I believe only four participate
regularly in skype or email events: Jim Homme, Al Pietrolungo, Jeffrey Turner,
and myself. Jim and I play on skype and email; Al and Jeffrey play pretty much
correspondence. Of the five who attended last year, three rarely compete in the
skype or email venues. Only a couple of us compete with any frequency at
mainstream tournaments. What does it mean?
I wish I knew. I just know that nobody answers either Al or me when we reach
out to see if there is anything we can do to promote some interest in our
national event. Maybe people assume, sort of along the lines you were
describing, that, because this is billed as a national event, the competition
level is so much higher. Not So. Not So. I frequently run into much stronger
players in the skype and email competitions. Embarrassing, but true. Certainly
the time control is friendlier. Our Skype events are usually 30 moves in 60
minutes, averaging two minutes per move. The national tournament time control
is game in two hours and fifteen minutes. Given that most games wrap up in 45
moves or less, that works out to more like three minutes per move on average.
So I have to conclude that it is fear or finance that keeps people away.
There's only one way to deal with the fear factor: jump in. Al is currently
working on some possibilities to do something about the finance angle. Stay
tuned!
Best regards, and thanks again for your feedback.
Jim T
-----Original Message-----
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of aerospace1028
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:14 AM
To: usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] my 2 cents (was: Attention: All US Blind Chess Players!)
Hello everyone,
I was busy when the e-mail about the national tournament went out, and didn't
have time to reply. By the time I had some free time, I had forgotten about
it. Sorry for the delay.
I lean much more towards correspondence than over-the-board chess; but I'll try
to cohesively present my hesitations about jumping into the annual national
tournament.
The first issue I think of is rather minor. It's intimidating to jump straight
from leisure hobby to national tournament. In the other sports in which I
participate, there is a stepping-stone path from local competitions, to
regionals, and nationals. Since traffic on the mailing-list indicates
attendance has been low at the national tournament, I could probably overcome
this intimidation factor by thinking of it more as an annual club championship
rather than a National championship--the club just happens to be spread out
over the whole country. :-)
The big concerns I would have, are probably interconnected. In preparing for a
competition, I like to spend time training under competition-like
circumstances. I might be old-school, but, to me, playing against a person,
face-to-face in the same location is different than playing against someone
over the phone or through a video-chat program, like skype.
Lastly, I have a minor worry that using a tactile board might telegraph my
thinking or strategy to an opponent with better vision than I have.
I tend to run my finger along the lines of attack for a piece and see what
squares it can move to and what pieces it can attack; I'll even stop at key
squares and run a finger from my other hand along the lines of attack that
piece would have from that position. Maybe it would take someone close to the
grand-master level to really capitalize on the insights of which pieces and
moves I am looking at. However, since I do this for my opponents pieces as
well as my own, I don't want to give an idea for a move to my opponent that he
or she might not have considered otherwise.
To me, the obvious solution is to play live games against other people.
Probably by finding a local chess-club or USCF events to participate in (USCF
membership is necessary for the national tournament, I might as well get the
most out of my membership dues). This would build comfort with the
face-to-face style of play, and allow me to gain confidence in playing against
challengers of varying visual abilities. Some day, I may actually pursue this,
but at the moment I live a 45-minute drive from the nearest town (my nearest
neighbor is about 1 km down the road) and the logistics just don't make sense.
Those are the main obstacles I can think of for participating in the National
Tournament. Take them for what they are worth. Others may have different
reasons or rationals for their lack of participation.
Cheers,
--Paul
