From Ari, who opened his email with the question above, and then continued as follows:
Dennis,
I don't mean to limit this question just to you, rather to 2000+ titled players like you. What I'd like to know is, though you've reached a high level of chess ability, what is it that separates you and other similarly matched players from achieving grandmaster status(and I don't mean the actual norm process, rather the playing ability). What is it that makes grandmasters better than you, and what do you think would be the best course of action to achieve grandmaster ability?
Thanks for considering my question, and even more thanks for your excellent blog and videos!
Ari
Because "grandmaster" is an official title, we mystify it, but I doubt that the question has an answer that's any better than the question of why a 2100 isn't a 2300, or a 1900 a 2100, or for that matter why a regular GM isn't a super-GM. (I give this 200 point gap because my current FIDE rating is about 200 points below the GM standard.) There are the usual culprits:
1. Talent (a loose term, which can encompass any and all of 4, 9b, 10 and the ability to more rapidly assimilate new knowledge, ideas and methods) 2. Opportunity 3. Training 4. Tactical ability 5. Knowledge of "chunks" 6. Depth of opening understanding (this carries into understanding the middlegames emerging from those openings, including standard plans and even transitions into various endings) 7. Endgame knowledge 8. Energy/stamina 9. Clock management/speed of thought 10. Good nerves
Some factors might have slipped my mind, but this is a pretty representative sample of the qualities that make one player stronger than another. A typical grandmaster probably won't have me beat on all 10 of these, but will have enough of an edge on enough of them to make a significant difference.
As for what I should do, well, there's no real mystery there either, at least broadly speaking. I, like everyone else, need to work on most of these issues, paying special attention to maximizing my strengths and fixing my biggest weaknesses. If I blow lots of endgames, then I need to focus extra attention there. If I run out of gas as the game gets a few hours in, it's time to hit the gym more often and take a critical look at my diet and sleeping patterns. If I'm getting lousy positions in the opening, or get good positions but don't know what to do with them, then it's time to study my openings more deeply and/or to play those that best fit my strengths as a chess player.
As one gets stronger, the training material needs to become more sophisticated, but the kinds of things one needs to work on remain the same for everyone. As my old pastor used to say, in a different but relevantly similar context, there's no magic foo-foo dust.
The player whose games strike me as most having something I don't is Karpov, even more than Fischer or Kasparov. It's about knowing what to do when there are good things to do, but none of the things that look concrete to a player like me are right. Getting that requires a lot of experience, but it also requires "touch"---like how to "tip" shots to score goals in ice hockey.
The second is exemplified by a game I remember from my last truly active period, in 1983-84. As Black in a Queen's Indian I allowed White to play Qd1-d6 after central exchanges. I knew it was actually a poor move for White---that I'd be able to drive the Queen away while consolidating my grip on e4. But my opponent zoomed the Queen down with an audible clop and a frankly off-putting glare. I did gain the initiative and won a pawn and was certainly - over + if not winning, but I let his unopposed dark-squared Bishop into h6 and went to pieces over ghosts of mate threats toward Move 40. That can be called 8+9+10 in Dennis' list, but looking back the stronger impression comes from the naked verve which my weekend-warrior IM opponent showed, and which was not part of my makeup.
Anyway, it was commonly said that people "annotate 200 points above their rating" even before the Fritz era. For a truly literate writer add 50 more, and 50 more for someone experienced with interpreting engines. Thus the playing rating is not out of line with the reality of getting 2600+ quality notes from this site---among the major sites I know only Sergei Shipov's same-day annotations (before now usually only in Russian!) strike me as consistently more insightful.
As a final riff on the 1. Talent factor, see this item by Kevin Spraggett.
[1]I don't believe the great myth about the positional understanding of players above me in the rating list being that great. This is a common myth that stronger players are sometimes guilty of perpetuating.
[2] The real difference is in calulation. At key moments I get out calculated.
[3] Professionals are much better in time trouble. When playing stronger players it is vital to avoid time trouble. Weaker players and this is a fault I have spend too long on the clock against stroner players checking and rechecking their calculations and normally achieve little as a result.
[4] As an amateur another real weakness is loss of control and concentration after the time control. Watch GM,s and the focus after a time control.
So in conclusion work on an opening repetoire of solid openings and calculating variations through exercises.
Great site as ever
Mike Twyble
This reminds me of a talented former clubmate (10-15 years ago) who, particularly after a few beers, was _talking_ a lot of becoming a grandmaster but maybe was too lazy to work on his chess and further improve, in any case went to university and later got a 'decent' job. I will not give his name - I left town and did not stay in touch, just checked that he is presently (still) rated 2293, now with an inactivity flag. An occasional visitor to our club was not much stronger at the time, his name is Jan Gustafsson ... .
Yes, of course someone must want it and prioritize. But that's not what makes someone a GM (or a better player); it's a precondition. If I sit around wanting to gain 200 points, but don't do anything to make it happen, or have no further ability, or use my chess time foolishly, or lack worthwhile training resources, etc., it's not going to happen.
That's not to minimize motivational factors at all - they are huge. It's just that it changes the subject.
I didn't mean to change the subject, rather expand it ... . Motivation (I would prefer to say prioritization) may well be part of the answer to the initial 'overarching' question "Why aren't you a grandmaster?" [as Ari subsequently wrote, "you" is a placeholder for '2000+ titled players'].
"I didn't become a grandmaster because I didn't really want to" may be considered a cheapo response, yet I would consider it valid and understandable. After all, a GM title does not at all guarantee earning a decent living from chess. I see something related in KWRegan's comment ("never planning to go pro"), based on your biography at Chessbase it may also apply to you - spending more time on chess in your younger years, then cutting down ("de-prioritizing").
To make one thing clear: this is NOT AT ALL a criticism - and 'lazy' in my previous post (referring to someone else) was at last partly in jest.
Let me introduce myself: I'm an FM rated 2334, living in the Ruhrgebiet in Germany. IT prof and chess fan. And I have a rather definte opinion about chess ability.
Everybody would like to improve his/her chess, and we all agree that this is indeed possible, or most of us at least. But in reality the playing strength of 95% of all players doesn't change much after their initial years, let's say after they get 20 or maybe 23. There seems to be something like a 'natural' playing strength for everybody.
The comments of Thomas remind me, like Dennis, a bit about the legions of players who like to believe they just didn't make the most of their talent. Everone, with a few sparse exceptions, seems to believe that all things equal he would be a much better player than he actually is. There is a wellknown example in the german grandmaster Gerald Hertneck, who rarely fails to point out that he is very happy to have chosen a normal job over a professional players' life, although he was such a brilliant prodigy. Well, he was. Only he says so in nearly every text he writes, be it a tournament report, a summary of a bundesliga round or an invitation to his birthday party. OK, I am exaggerating a bit. But only a bit. I think you have gotten my point. It is so sad, this bitterness about lost opportunities and the need to justify your failure or your decision with such thoughts.
But I am digressing. Way too much. Let's go back to the hopeful chess student trying to improve. If you work hard this absolutely helps, although there is something to be said about wasting your time and money on opening books, rather than trying to play better.
And this is exactly the point: There is something that you can call 'chess playing ability'. I believe Kramnik has used that terminology in an interview when asked about quickplay time controls. There are good players and there are bad players. And the difference between them is way greater than the bad player is able to see. As Dennis had id : "And there's a huge gap between 2000 and 2500." I would go even farther: There are so many differences in class between chess players, and the gaps get wider and wider the more you go up in the rating lists. A 2300 player is much better IN EVERY ASPECT of the game than a 2000 player. The psycho and physical things put aside. He is so much better that the latter doesn't stand the slightest chance. The 2450 player will beat the 2300 player, while the 2550 player is way above said 2450 player. And what does the 2650 guy think about the 2550 opponent? You got it; everything but a win is not acceptable.
The differences are huge. They are so huge, and the bad player normally doesn't have a clue about it. I had my moments of enlightenment when I spent many hours with John Emms on a regular basis, and there is a classical anecdote about another german GM: Chrisian Gabriel gave up 'real' chess soon after he played one of his first big tournaments. He sat at the bar after his game, when Garry K. came by, who had watched his game in progress for a few seconds while taking a stroll during his own game. He made a comment about Gabriel's position,which did nothing else but touch the very heart about his position, something which Christian had fought for for more than two hours and still not grasped as clearly as the master himself while just walking by.
So why doesn't this difference always tell, and what really am I saying? OK, I need to come to an end with this comment, as else Dennis will run out of server space :). Adressing the first: Chess somehow is a very forgiving game; in most cases the weaker player will make 'good enough' moves, although he doesn't have the slightest idea what is going on. The better player will work much harder, see much more, but that doesn't have to tell for 10-15 moves. Plus there is the fact that a really aweful move spoils most of your effort.
And on the second question: What am I saying? I began this comment with an idea about the weaker player being in need to change his view of his chess somehow. Chess is very concrete or whatever you say in english: you have to calculate, calculate, calculate. Not alwyas, of course. Chess is rather forgiving. But the good player will always calculate more than the bad player. So move your [rear ends] and work! :D
All the best
Kai Schiffer