Hmmm. Well, I played in one event and it went okay. I got to play a GM in the last round, which was neat. However, I am not a big fan of playing rated chess over a computer. For me, I prefer to see my opponent's face (laughs)

Yes, that is a danger. Or that someone's friend is helping them.

I have no idea. I don't see how ICC can determine if you are using an opening book . Sounds totally impossible to me. A computer, sure, but an opening book? Nah.

Yes

I doubt that they could catch that, either

As long as you have a totally separate computer and aren't switching between screens. They can trace that, I think.

Same this year

My first stop is Halifax for the Canada Day Open. Then I will be helping Sebastian Predescu at the CYCC, even though I think the tournament is a waste of time. Then both of us are playing in the Canadian Open. Then a chess camp in PEI. Then the Atlantic Invitational. Then maybe one more tournament. And homeward bound!

Because the tournament has too many weak players, and playing bad players leads to bad habits, IMO. Besides, to determine national titles, it should be required that all of the top players meet, and they don't do that anymore.

Yes, that is one way. I don't consider myself a chess "player", I'm more of a chess teacher I guess (chess bum?). (laughs) I don't take the vast majority of games that I play seriously. This is true for many of the top players in Canada.

No, no, no, no, no! I think that if the strong players could agree not to play then the conditions would have to improve.

1) Set a higher qualification standard - at least 2350...minimum, assuming that they want to hold it as a Swiss.

Yes and 2250 is ridiculous.
2) No entrance fees. None. You can have some sort of deposit to ensure that people will complete the schedule but not entrance fees. It is an insult, in my opinion.
3) Prizes known in advance, and not prizes like $1000 for first. That's ridiculous. I make about $600/week teaching chess, so if they want me to play in some tournament for 9 or 10 days, with $1000 first prize, I am sacrficing already about $800 in income and that is before I have to pay transportation, food, and lodging. So I cannot possibly make a profit.

Well then, do not hold the event, until you can ensure decent conditions. Or hold it with a reduced format.

Well, Lesiege and Spraggett, at least at the moment, are 1 and 2 by a substantial margin. Hold two qualifiers...one in Toronto, one in Montreal. Sorry, but that's where 90% of the good players are. And the winner of each can join them in the Closed. 4 players...round robin, maybe double round robin, or even bigger...quad round robin. That way norms are possible, at least for the two qualifiers. The winner goes to the World Championships. That way, from the qualifier entrance fees, you have enough money for some prizes and because you have to house only 4 players, you can pay their expenses.

Nope! The qualifiers would be short, maybe a weekend, or a long weekend. Six rounds and the top prize would be substantial, since qualifiying for the Closed, even last place (i.e. fourth) would be worth some decent money.

1) Guys 2250 seem to think that they are Closed material...don't ask me why. (laughs)
2) Everyone sees cheap titles. 6/9 and hey! IM! 4.5/9 and hey! FM!

So do what I did...go and play elsewhere!

Sure, I don't blame the players...I blame the federation for kowtowing to the players :) It's like mom and broccoli...you don't wanna eat it, you want chocolate ice cream, but mom tells you to eat your broccoli, it's good for you. Same idea here.

Hmmm...

Best game was probably vs. Csaba Horvath. Actually two games, back to back wins in Hungary, a Round Robin on lake Balaton, got me my second IM norm. Csaba was about 2500 FIDE and the round after Pal Petran was about 2420. I needed to win both to get my norm and I did! Pretty good games, considering the stress of playing. I don't think of a game as "good" unless there is something significant on the line. It is why to become a titled player requires more than chess skill. It requires some mental toughness and ability to control the emotions.

Hmmm...best player. Probably Vaganian, or maybe Hort?

Vaganian was in Toronto. The Croatians ran an excellent event, a man named Mike Miklausic ran it. Very, very nice event.

(laughs). I lost. A long queen ending. It was a very interesting game. I enjoyed it very much ... more than probably 95% of the games I win. And Hort was in Thessalonika, Greece in the 1988 Olympiad. I lost that one too. I got hammered badly. But again, I tried to learn something from it (laughs).

Well, mostly I teach kids. The key is to not make it boring. Chess is interesting, but for kids, it is slow, so you have to jazz it up a bit. When they get some experience, they will (maybe) grow to love chess. But at first, if it is too boring they will drop it for Nintendo. I feel my main duty is to impart my love of chess to them. Then they can make their own mind up as to whether they love it, too.

I'm afraid that adults have a different idea about chess teaching. I have noticed that for some, they figure that there must be say a dozen "secrets" to get them from 1400 to 1600 for example.

Yes, or even in two or three hours (laughs). Anyways, they don't seem to understand that the role of the coach is not to do the work. That does not help the student at all. The role of the coach is to guide the effort. The student does 90% of the work and the teacher sort of guides the student and tells them what they should do to improve. With kids it is different though. They know so little, most of them, that you have to show them, for example, how to checkmate with Q and R and K v. K. Then you go through it over and over, until it is stuck in their brains. But for adults, this is silly, time consuming, expensive and not productive. So the student has to, for example, study his games and give me their notes, and then I tell them what thought processes are wrong and how to correct them and I find bad patterns (bad habits) in their play. It is possible, of course, for an individual to do this themselves, but it would take a very, very objective, observant person to carry this off. And even if they did, their improvement would be slower, IMO.

YES! YES! I much, much prefer to teach people who know "nothing". It saves me time to have to unteach them things. A simple example : Someone uses the four move checkmate (ex. 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qf3 d6? 4.Qxf7#) and wins in four moves maybe 20% of the time effortlessly. However, the other 80% of his positions are just dubious. So you have to explain that they will sacrifice the 20% effortless wins (they might still win those 20%, but not as fast) to get a better game in the other 80%. But it is hard to wean people from their bad playing habits, when they have been successful with them. Unlearning bad habits is hard at all levels, I think. Probably harder the higher you go, since, to use me as an example, I can make all sorts of dumbass moves and not get punished for them. That is, until I meet someone around my strength, or better, and they crush me like a bug because they identify my weakness and exploit it. Actually my weaknesses! (laughs)

My pleasure, Craig.

I can be reached by email at tomohawk52@hotmail.com and I will be in the Maritimes for about five weeks, with camp in PEI and at least three tournaments so I won't be back in town until mid-August.