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