hopelessly under-equipped the previous year ( which was true ). He did not reply and I have never heard from him since . It was clearly a message he did not want to hear .
What TECHNICIANS and WARRIORS have in common is a shared interest in excellence at CC . Both work really hard on their games , try to set consistently high standards , take a continuing interest in their gradings and make a real effort to win tournaments . Neither takes on too many games ( as ADDICTS often do ), and neither limits themselves to domestic competitions ( as TEAMSTERS often do ). Both TECHNICIANS and WARRIORS are willing to take on the strongest opposition and fight hard for the half-point in defence .
Now let us look at the differences . TECHNICIANS adopt opening systems to suit their own style , they play the openings using the best databases and statistics ; and , once a game is underway , they play positions . By that I mean that they study in detail what is the “ best ” move in a given position and always play it ( if it comes up again ). They have a range of engines all of which are up-to-date ; and they use them as tools . They never play a move simply because the engine says it is best , but only after detailed analysis . They keep up-to-date with all kinds of theory and employ the endgame tablebases at the earliest opportunity . They are usually very knowledgeable about computers and computing . TECHNICIANS are therefore very difficult to beat . They are sometimes highly communicative , but often not . I have played many TECHNICIANS who saw no relevance in communicating with their opponents at all . Their opponent was simply the person who happened to be sitting on the other side of the table , a person in whom they had no interest except as the player of moves .
WARRIORS , by contrast , play people , not just positions . They want to know what openings their opponents use and why ; and they adjust their own opening moves according to the opponent ’ s repertoire . For example , I generally open 1 . e4 , but never against a strong opponent who is an exponent of the French Defence . Against these players , I
open 1 . c4 . With Black , I reply to 1 . e4 with 1 …. c5 against players under 2300 but invariably with 1 …. e4 against players over 2350 .
As a WARRIOR , I study every aspect of my opponent ’ s approach to the game : I try to work out what engines they are using and how . I work out how many games they are playing and whether their gradings are on rising , stable or falling trend . I look at their pace of play , how long they typically take to respond to moves and how much that varies and why . I even look at the days of the week they allocate to chess and the times of the day that they favour for playing moves . I look at the kinds of tournaments they participate in , their recent games , their successes and failures . For example , if an opponent of mine has just won a key game in another tournament , I will play it through and send informed , congratulatory comments . Most players really appreciate this and such a gesture will often generate a discussion , the more the better as far as I am concerned . I am naturally sociable , but my whole style of chess-playing depends on knowing my opponents well .
As time goes on , the edge that TECHNICIANS hold over WARRIORS is nevertheless more palpable ; and I find that my lack of technical competence , and inferior equipment , is an increasing handicap . Ultimately , these differences will accelerate me towards retirement . Having said that , TECHNICIANS rarely gain gradings above 2450 on technology alone . The people at the very top , the GMs , have to function like WARRIORS as well .
Year on year , my tournament success rate seems to be everso-gradually receding . It was therefore a nice surprise to have employed my “ warrior ” approach with success in the recent Scottish Webserver Championship , especially since I played the whole tournament with Komodo 8 on an old desktop , whereas most of my opponents have , I believe , Komodo 9 on newer equipment ; but this was an exceptional result against opponents who are fundamentally better chess players than I am .
[ Ed – another Bennett article and some more chess images from Samuel Bak . You can find these images ( and many others ) on the University of Minnesota website : http :// www . chgs . umn . edu / museum / responses / bak / chess . html ]
As Clear as the Day ( oil on canvas ) Knowledgeable ( oil on canvas )
SCCA Magazine 133 11 Spring 2016