The Caissa Plan
Opening Maintenance
1. Pick one opening that you can live with for the rest of your life. I pick the 1.d4-2.c4 complex as White and the Caro-Kann and Slav Defenses as Black.
2.Examine, choose, and script the first repertoire choices within the Opening complex.
3.Memorize the repertoire.
4.Play the repertoire as often as possible, against computer, FICS, and local club games to learn it under game conditions.
5.Maintain the repertoire by staying current with theory, refurbishing or altering deficits, and researching for novelties.
6.Add additional variations to the repertoire to make preparation more difficult for opponents, and provide play to win or play to draw options.
Shot and Blunder Recognition
1.Work through a basic workbook of typical shots (Palliser) over and over until they are down cold.
2.Repeat with the next book
3.Spot shots from within the repertoire and from Game post mortems. Never make the same mistake twice.
Technique
1.Work through the fundamental endgames (Grivas) over and over until they are down cold.
2.Repeat with the next book on more complicated endgames.
3.Learn endgames from within the repertoire from GMs and from post mortems.
Strategy and Planning
1.Study complete GM games from within the repertoire and take note of the nuances.
2.Study general strategic thought from texts.
3.Conduct regular post-mortems in order to understand the heart of the positions I play.
4.Conduct self-assessments regarding psychological strengths and weaknesses as well as clock management.
Mental Health
Enjoy Chess. You are not a professional. Play what you like. Do your best, and don’t permit harmful accusatory self-talk. Be kind and courteous to everyone. Enjoy chess people and chess culture. The ratings are what they are. Accept finitude with grace and peace.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Current USCF Mess
Because I plan to compete this Fall in tournaments I need to purchase a membership in the United States Chess Federation.
So I thought I would look around a bit. I read about this USCF staff cutting and Polgar lawsuit. So I dug a little deeper. I went to Susan's site and read her side. Then I cast about for non polarized opinions and read wikapaedia and some newspaper columns on the subject.
It is an ugly thing. In order to get to some semblance of fact I would need to actually understand law and accounting. I would need to do retro-email traces for the one side, which may not be within my legal rights to do. And I would need to read the actual legal accusations, offers, and decisions. Did Susan actually offer to settle for $1?
Did members of the USCF leadership, in a conflict of interest utilise the organization for their personal political benefit? If done, was this illegal, or simply immoral? Is the accountability structure of the USCF sufficient? If not, how can the organization become more transparent? If sufficient accountability rules are in place, are they being duly enforced? Who enforces the enforcer? Were the lawsuits and counter lawsuits properly decided upon by the elected leaders?
Did Susan's husband post bogus e-mail comments that directly effected an election outcome? If so, should the Democrat or Republican parties hire him? (joke)
I believe things are quite messy now. However I am not without hope. First of all I believe that alleged corruption in chess has been an ongoing problem in FIDE too. For that matter there is alleged corruption in the Vatican. So my first point is that organizations by nature suffer from moral lassitude in direct proportion to the leadership's power and institutional opacity. So I am not overly impressed.
Secondly, despite the ugly polarization that exists now, and the dirt flying about, I believe that a thorough investigation and reasonable post-mortem is possible. There are plenty of records available for an interested chess historian. The truth is out there. This may take time and may even never be done. And it will not fix the current dust up. Yet even so, the chess rating apparatus is still operating.
I personally do not need the USCF except for the official rating. I play chess on line. I play at the local chess hotspots. I read chess books and buy chess dvds. I am not a kid in scholastic chess. I am doing just fine without the USCF. All I need is the recognized authentic rating.
This does not mean I am heartless and do not care about the integrity of the organization and the impact on Chess. On the contrary. I think the USCF should probably: 1.Make polity changes that ensure simplicity of operation, full transparency, and conflict of interest required reclusion, with mandated enforcement. 2. Make polity changes that make the leadership of the organization more vulnerable to democratic direction. 3.This is just me, but I think the USCF should make chess more amateur and more professional. What I mean is that chess at the class and lower master levels is about the thrill of competition and the love of the game. It should not be about the money. On the other hand Grandmaster level chess should provide some sort of significant financial reward to permit the existence of United States Chess professionals. To make my case I think first of Poker. Everyone buys in, but only one walks away with the prize. And this is quite successful. For my second supporting point, look what a little money did for Linares through the years. I personally would be happy to see my tournament entry fee go towards world class chess, rather than to a sandbagging u-1800. 4. Promotion of the game in general and the development of scholastic competitive chess as a joy in itself and talent discovery vehicle should remain a high priority for the USCF and be part of their mandate. 5. Having another talent and story like Bobby Fischer would do wonders for chess' popularity. And this is more likely to happen with a broadening of the base through scholastic chess and well run local tournaments. 6.Most importantly the USCF and FIDE for that matter need to stop sabotaging the beautiful game with stupid personal issues. It seems to me that chess organizations have often been their own worst enemy.
Caissa help us!
So I thought I would look around a bit. I read about this USCF staff cutting and Polgar lawsuit. So I dug a little deeper. I went to Susan's site and read her side. Then I cast about for non polarized opinions and read wikapaedia and some newspaper columns on the subject.
It is an ugly thing. In order to get to some semblance of fact I would need to actually understand law and accounting. I would need to do retro-email traces for the one side, which may not be within my legal rights to do. And I would need to read the actual legal accusations, offers, and decisions. Did Susan actually offer to settle for $1?
Did members of the USCF leadership, in a conflict of interest utilise the organization for their personal political benefit? If done, was this illegal, or simply immoral? Is the accountability structure of the USCF sufficient? If not, how can the organization become more transparent? If sufficient accountability rules are in place, are they being duly enforced? Who enforces the enforcer? Were the lawsuits and counter lawsuits properly decided upon by the elected leaders?
Did Susan's husband post bogus e-mail comments that directly effected an election outcome? If so, should the Democrat or Republican parties hire him? (joke)
I believe things are quite messy now. However I am not without hope. First of all I believe that alleged corruption in chess has been an ongoing problem in FIDE too. For that matter there is alleged corruption in the Vatican. So my first point is that organizations by nature suffer from moral lassitude in direct proportion to the leadership's power and institutional opacity. So I am not overly impressed.
Secondly, despite the ugly polarization that exists now, and the dirt flying about, I believe that a thorough investigation and reasonable post-mortem is possible. There are plenty of records available for an interested chess historian. The truth is out there. This may take time and may even never be done. And it will not fix the current dust up. Yet even so, the chess rating apparatus is still operating.
I personally do not need the USCF except for the official rating. I play chess on line. I play at the local chess hotspots. I read chess books and buy chess dvds. I am not a kid in scholastic chess. I am doing just fine without the USCF. All I need is the recognized authentic rating.
This does not mean I am heartless and do not care about the integrity of the organization and the impact on Chess. On the contrary. I think the USCF should probably: 1.Make polity changes that ensure simplicity of operation, full transparency, and conflict of interest required reclusion, with mandated enforcement. 2. Make polity changes that make the leadership of the organization more vulnerable to democratic direction. 3.This is just me, but I think the USCF should make chess more amateur and more professional. What I mean is that chess at the class and lower master levels is about the thrill of competition and the love of the game. It should not be about the money. On the other hand Grandmaster level chess should provide some sort of significant financial reward to permit the existence of United States Chess professionals. To make my case I think first of Poker. Everyone buys in, but only one walks away with the prize. And this is quite successful. For my second supporting point, look what a little money did for Linares through the years. I personally would be happy to see my tournament entry fee go towards world class chess, rather than to a sandbagging u-1800. 4. Promotion of the game in general and the development of scholastic competitive chess as a joy in itself and talent discovery vehicle should remain a high priority for the USCF and be part of their mandate. 5. Having another talent and story like Bobby Fischer would do wonders for chess' popularity. And this is more likely to happen with a broadening of the base through scholastic chess and well run local tournaments. 6.Most importantly the USCF and FIDE for that matter need to stop sabotaging the beautiful game with stupid personal issues. It seems to me that chess organizations have often been their own worst enemy.
Caissa help us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
