Where ADDICTS and TEAMSTERS differ is in the nature of the activity which absorbs the time which they consistently bring to the game . Addicts have a compulsion to play , so are involved in a vast array of competitions , and their games tend to take most of their energy . They have little time for administration . TEAMSTERS , on the other hand , are the least ambitious of the four types ( hence they tend to be lower-graded ) but greatly enjoy the community of CC , that is , belonging to a CC club . TEAMSTERS tend to play in the same competitions year after year , often playing against the same opponents over and over again . They play within clubs and within national boundaries , rarely venturing into the international arena . They also run the game : they are the secretaries and treasurers and competition organisers who oil the wheels of CC activity . TEAMSTERS are the people you find on committees and who enjoy being on committees . They always turn up at AGMs and nothing makes them happier than proposing , seconding and extensively debating resolutions . They love being at the centre of things and they love the organisations they create , so much so that they sometimes virtually stop playing chess altogether .
I once belonged to a tennis club in which only about 75 % of members actually played tennis . I thought this very amusing at the time but I now realise that this pattern is reflected in many clubs and societies : the human connection is more important than the hobby itself . So also in chess .
TEAMSTERS in the world of CC tend also to play in “ team ” events . Most CC clubs seem to have at least one event in which people form themselves into teams with ridiculous names , such as “ Knights in shining armour ” or “ Bishops in purple ”, and play one another for apparently meaningful ( to them ) prizes and titles . Personally , I have never been able to make much sense of this kind of thing ; but I do recognise it as representing a degree of homage to “ team ” play and general camaraderie .
What TEAMSTERS and WARRIORS have in common is an interest in people . As well as playing CC , they are both likely also to belong to OTB clubs . Both groups tend to contribute to the CC community , for example , by submitting material to club magazines .
TEAMSTERS and WARRIORS , for slightly different reason , are also interested in getting to know their opponents and are therefore commonly the kinds of players who make full use of the messaging systems . Whereas TEAMSTERS are merely sociable in this respect , WARRIORS have another level of interest . For WARRIORS , winning at CC is all about understanding your opponents , how they approach the game , how they analyse , what openings they use and why , where their strengths are and what , if any , are their vulnerabilities and weaknesses . WARRIOR chess is all about finding the way in which you can win a game against each specific opponent . How you win against one opponent is quite different from how you win against another , your approach to each games has to be tailored to the specific task in hand . and even amuse readers with anecdotes , WARRIORS will write about how the games is played , not just what is played . Perceptive readers may already have seen that the present article is a typical WARRIOR contribution , which is as it should be : I am a WARRIOR . If my approach to CC was not in the “ WARRIOR ” corner , I could not write such an article .
I recall a small success from a few years ago . After trying ( and failing ) to win a certain tournament several times , I finally triumphed at the third attempt . It was a single roundrobin event with 11 players and my grading placed me in the middle of the pack . So I was very gratified to win my game against the top seed who , at 2270 +, was not only 100 grading points above me but also by far the highest-graded player I had ever beaten at that time . I will call him Player X . I mention this particular game because , it so happened , I got to meet the player in question at a congress soon after the event . He wasn ’ t very communicative and I had the impression that he was still quite upset about losing that CC game to me . From the little that he did say , however , I could infer that he assumed the reason he had lost was that I was playing with a stronger engine . Many players seem only to cope with losses by making assumptions of this kind : when they win , it is because they have played the better chess ; when their opponent wins , it must be because he has the stronger engine . This is a childish way to look at the issue ; and kidding ourselves in this fashion is actually a barrier to improvement .
Player X would be mortified to discover that I had played the whole tournament with a weaker engine than he was using ; but I was using it differently . My success was down to the investment of time I put into that event , far greater than my opponents realised . Player X lost that game because he was guilty of shallow analysis at a critical moment when depth analysis was vital . If he had wanted to use the opportunity provided by our meeting to learn something about how he had lost he could have done so , by simply asking me for my opinions on the game . But he did not ask ; and he left me with the impression that he preferred to cherish his own prejudices about it .
By contrast , when I lose games , I try always to learn something from the experience . So here is a confession . My very recent CC record contains more losses than usual : four , in fact . Three of those opponents , to my certain knowledge ( because I troubled to find out ), are far better OTB players than I am ; so even in CC mode , in complex early middle-game positions where engine assessments are sometimes misleading , they made better positional judgements than I did . In the late middle game or endgame , by contrast , I can hold my own against a CC-GM ; but my weakness as an OTB player reduces my effectiveness as a CC player in the early middle game . Being aware of this weakness is crucial if I am to compete effectively at a higher level .
The example of my game against Player X should tell the reader something about the approach of WARRIOR players . A postscript to that tournament , a few weeks later when I had entered another tournament in which the opposition would be far stronger , I wrote to X and told him ( candidly but slightly mischievously ) that I was about to invest in a
It also follows that TEAMSTERS AND WARRIORS , as active magazine contributors , actually submit very different kinds of material . Whereas TEAMSTERS will give accounts of meetings and congresses , report on competitions new engine for the new season because I had been
SCCA Magazine 133 10 Spring 2016