Mysteries of Chess

[Jon Mahony]

I also agree that learning openings is not the be-all and end-all, especially at the sub 100 level. One GM (Nigel Short?) described openings as the pornography of Chess - as players we can’t get enough of it (and the more exotic the better!). Consequently I have 3 big storage boxes full of next to useless books (to me) on things like 1.b4, the Grob, the Bird (I even have a CD on that called “the big Birds opening database!” ) Which I have bought thinking at one time or another, they were going to be my surprise weapon which would push my grade up 80 points. Strangely enough it never worked out that way.

These days, especially as white I am happy playing my 1.d4 systems, I get the same sort of game nearly every time, I understand the position better than my opponent and I have an advantage if I am the stronger player.

The best thing you can do at beginner level is to learn the fundamentals of tactics - its all very well knowing what opening you are in, but it won’t do you a lot of good if you loose a Rook on move 12 to some horrible fork or skewer.

[Roger de Coverly]

The best thing you can do at beginner level is to learn the fundamentals of tactics

At a level below that, a sense of where the pieces are placed, the squares controlled and the potential threats so that pieces aren't moved to squares that are attacked and undefended. Styles obviously vary, but the lowest level of experienced club players often play without any great ambition to seize the initiative and generate threats, but they don't often leave pieces and pawns lose and will snap up any free gifts.

[Peter Webber]

Matt Fletcher wrote;
We don't have any regular attendees below 100 grade but there are a few around that mark who you should be able have a decent game with.

So how then can chess clubs help players of different standards?

Let's put it in golfing terms. My handicap is 24, which means I go round the course in about 95/96 strokes. My opponent has a handicap of, say, 10, which equates to his round being close to 81/82. How is it therefore possible to compete on equal footings without some sort of handicap allowance?

[Roger de Coverly]

How is it therefore possible to compete on equal footings without some sort of handicap allowance?

Time allowance is one way of doing it. The stronger player has five minutes, the weaker has ten. Or whatever relative values suit.

[Jonathan Bryant]

So how then can chess clubs help players of different standards?

Unfortunately I don’t believe you can. Not really.

It’s true you can have time handicaps. Or even material handicaps. But I’m not sure it makes much difference. A few years back my club had a couple of tournaments with handicaps of either type. The best players ended up winning anyway.

Admittedly varying the time is probably better than doing nothing, but I reckon I could beat 99% of the British population at chess with 1 minute on my clock against 1 hour. And I’m certainly not saying that because I think I’m in any way exceptional.


One of the problems of chess is that it doesn’t really cater that well when opponents are not relatively evenly matched. Ed Smith made this point in his book about luck - when he said he and his then girlfriend played backgammon because even though she was much better than him he would occasionally win a game just through getting some lucky rolls at key moment.

This problem with chess is the price we pay for all the good things about chess.


With chess there’s a very high 'skill related barrier to entry' for new comers. but at least, unlike sports like golf there’s no 'cost of equipment barrier to entry'.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The best thing a club can do to help members of wildly varying standards is probably to have a number of teams in the local league, catering for a wide range of abilities of players. This tends to mean players graded 50-60 at your club are likely to end up playing players graded 50-60 at other clubs.

[Matt Fletcher]

The best thing a club can do to help members of wildly varying standards is probably to have a number of teams in the local league, catering for a wide range of abilities of players. This tends to mean players graded 50-60 at your club are likely to end up playing players graded 50-60 at other clubs.

I tend to agree - we have a team in division 6 in the Herts league where the grade of board 5 looks to be between 50 and 100, mostly around 80-90. There is also an under-120 league where the lowest board tends to be around the same standard.

I enjoy playing time-handicap chess, but find it doesn't really help bridge the gap in playing strength (particularly if the disparity is large) - seems to me that the higher rated player will often simply lose on time in a better position. Also friendly games at the club tend not to be played on the clock. Other options are material handicaps (I'm not keen on this kind of game) or simply allowing the weaker player to take bad moves back.

[Jonathan Bryant]

The best thing a club can do to help members of wildly varying standards is probably to have a number of teams in the local league, catering for a wide range of abilities of players. This tends to mean players graded 50-60 at your club are likely to end up playing players graded 50-60 at other clubs.

Although that still excludes a huge number of chessers who aren’t good enough to be 50-60 ECF or who are not interested in playing chess in a formal league setting. Still, if there are enough players of that strength in an area to form a division of a league, it's definitely the way to go.

[Clive Blackburn]

I enjoy playing time-handicap chess, but find it doesn't really help bridge the gap in playing strength (particularly if the disparity is large) - seems to me that the higher rated player will often simply lose on time in a better position. Also friendly games at the club tend not to be played on the clock. Other options are material handicaps (I'm not keen on this kind of game) or simply allowing the weaker player to take bad moves back.

Another interesting form of handicap is to stipulate that the stronger player must deliver mate within a certain number of moves (say 30) and if he fails then he loses. It does make for very exciting chess and the weaker player always feels that he has a chance. The stronger player is usually forced to abandon his favourite solid opening system and play something much more aggressive, often a gambit.

[Clive Blackburn]

I enjoy playing time-handicap chess, but find it doesn't really help bridge the gap in playing strength (particularly if the disparity is large) - seems to me that the higher rated player will often simply lose on time in a better position.

I remember playing several times in the annual time handicap tournament at Lutterworth. As far as I am aware, it is no longer held.

It was run on a Swiss system and I think that each game lasted 50 minutes, divided according to the gradings of the players. In one round Mark Hebden was given just 1 minute and his much lower-rated oppoopponent 49 minutes!

Hebden still won of course but it was highly entertaining for the bystanders!

[IM Jack Rudd]

Barnstaple CC holds those sorts of events, with 20 minutes being divided between the players. Last time I played in one, I was playing 2 v 18 in every game. Theo Slade proved a bit too much for me at that handicap.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Barnstaple CC holds those sorts of events, with 20 minutes being divided between the players. Last time I played in one, I was playing 2 v 18 in every game. Theo Slade proved a bit too much for me at that handicap.

That’s a normal game for you, surely.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Peter, I've got an idea. Start writing your games down and posting them on here. Then I can have a look at them for you and try to help you improve. There's probably scope for a great deal of improvement there.

[Jon Mahony]

I’m not really keen on any form of Handicapping in Chess. The Leeds League runs a competition called the Mini League (3 man team) which is handicapped on team grading - your team and the opposing teams grading are added up, and then using a formula, it is worked out that the team with the lower graded players are given anything up to a 1.5 point start on the overall match score (depending on how weak they are). The games are then played as normal, but it can mean that the team with the higher graded players need to win all their games to win the match, one draw and that’s it, drawn match or worse.

Consequently as a team captain, I find myself checking the YCA site to see what the grades of the opposing team are likely to be, and rather than putting the strongest possible team out, picking someone who will win on board 1 and putting a couple of lower grades in so we don’t take a massive hit on the Handicap.

Time, or even worse, material odds, changes the very nature of the game - I wouldn’t insult anyone by offering to play a game with them where I’m missing a Rook. Chess is a fair contest between two people, if one of those people is the stronger player he / she should rightly win. If weaker players are molly coddled, there is no incentive to get better - you don’t catch me moaning when I’m in a lost position by move 20 against a 180 grade

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Jon,

I agree, handicapping the so called stronger player does not help the weaker player.
Next it will be letting them take moves back.

They ran something like a team grading event in the summer in Edinburgh,
I could not get a game because my grade was too high.
It meant everyone else in the team had to win, even if we drop ½ point we lose.

Good offer from Jack for the lad to post a few of his games
so he can go over them. That is the way to go.