08 November 2008

Howard's Chess Survey Results

I've already seen this in a number of places (e.g. Results 1 - 10 of about 17 for "Players learned the moves at a median age"), but it deserves maximum exposure. Howard made waves back in 2005 with another study announcing Men better at chess:

The battle of the sexes has spilled over into chess. In a novel approach to testing gender differences in achievement, an Australian researcher has compared the past three decades of male and female international chess results to see if gender differences have diminished with changes in society. But the results of the study, by Dr Robert Howard from the University of New South Wales, may ruffle some female feathers. Despite changes in what society expects of women, access to opportunities to succeed intellectually, and other factors, women don't do as well in chess as men.

When I first saw the announcement for the latest study, I wondered if it would be used to pursue the conclusions of the previous study. It appears my concerns were groundless.

***

Subject: Chess survey results
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 6:58 AM
From: Robert Howard

Dear Chessplayer,

Thank you for your participation in my FIDE study. A summary of the preliminary results is below and a link to a detailed report on the study is given further down.

Robert Howard

---

Thanks to everyone who took part in this survey. Here are the preliminary results. The sample consist of 581 players to date, with five grandmasters, 25 international masters, 67 FIDE masters, two woman's grandmasters, two woman's international masters, and two woman's FIDE masters. The results are only preliminary, however.

Some highlights:

Players learned the moves at a median age of eight years old (masters about two years younger). The median age of starting serious play and taking part in the first rated tournament is 14, 12 for masters. Most players have had coaching. Players average around five or six hours of chess study a week, but the range is huge (0 to 60 hours). Number of hours of study of chess material is a factor in expertise level but only a relatively minor one.

Most players firmly believe in natural talent for chess and most believe that top ten players have some special traits, that few really can reach that level. However, many believe that a lot of study and practice can take a player a long way. Some believe that almost everyone can get to FIDE master with enough practice and study.

Views on what natural talent for chess consists of vary, but some common ideas are good spatial ability, high IQ, good memory, creativity, high motivation, a strong will to win, control over emotions, and psychological hardiness.

Eventual grandmasters take a median 390 FIDE-rated games from rating list entry to gain the title. Most players do not play anywhere near enough rated games in their careers to have a realistic chance of becoming a grandmaster. About two thirds of those who do play over 900 games actually succeed in becoming a grandmaster. However, those who play over 740 games without becoming a grandmaster on average seem to strike an impassable barrier at around 2400 level.

Analysis of rating data of players who played over 900 FIDE-rated games show that eventual top ten players indeed are identifiable from list entry. They get on the rating list much younger on average, get the grandmaster title much younger and much faster, and rise in the ratings much faster than other grandmasters.

Most believe that playing rated games and studying are equally important in developing skill.

The full article is below.

http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/fidestudy/results

07 November 2008

'It looks like the chess Knight!'


come il cavallo degli scacchi! © Flickr user ecatoncheires under Creative Commons.

'This photo is for sure a genuine Ace of Spades ♠.' For more, see items matching chess in the Ace of Spades ♠ pool, although 'looks like the chess Knight' is missing from the search results.

06 November 2008

Meet Alessia



Born 2 November 2008

Call me 'Papi'! Is she a future Belgian Women's Champion?

04 November 2008

Chess960 Game Explorer

This weekend I received a private message on SchemingMind.com from member heuschrecke. He mentioned having written a short essay for ICCF Amici about playing chess960 via correspondence server. Although I couldn't find a copy of the article online, he was kind enough to forward it via email. The gist of it is that

Decades of intense and thourough analysis, and millions of games were needed to develop current opening theory in standard chess. Imagine then, how long it would take to develop opening theory in the other 959 different chess960 positions?

The article goes on to mention a resource on Scheming Mind called the Game Explorer, which features a section on chess960 openings. The purpose of the resource is to address the task of developing opening theory in the 'other 959 different chess960 positions'. It shows moves that have been tried on Scheming Mind, but the annotations covering the first 100 start positions are only available to full members of the service.

For more about Scheming Mind and the ICCF, see Chess960 (Fischer Random Chess), on the ICCF Forum.

03 November 2008

02 November 2008

Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin (1850-1908)

Chigorin's record of principal tournaments and matches, extracted from the Oxford Companion to Chess (p.77):-

1878 Match vs. Schiffers (+7-3=0)
1878 Match vs. Schiffers (+6-7=1)
1879 Match vs. Schiffers (+7-4=2)
1880 Match vs. Schiffers (+7-1=3)
1880 Match vs. Alapin (+7-3=0)
1881 Berlin, 3rd-4th w/ Winawer after Blackburne & Zukertort
1883 London, 4th after Zukertort, Steinitz, & Blackburne
1886-7 Telegraph match St.Petersburg - London (+2-0=0)
1889 WCC match vs. Steinitz (+6-10=1)
1889 New York, 1st-2nd w/ Weiss
1890 Match vs. Gunsberg (+9-9=5)
1890-1 Telegraph match vs. Steinitz (+2-0=0)
1892 WCC match vs. Steinitz (+8-10=5)
1893 Match vs. Tarrasch (+9-9=4)
1895 Match vs. Schiffers (+7-3=3)
1895 Hastings, 2nd after Pillsbury (+14-3=4)
1896 Budapest, 1st-2nd w/ Charousek (+7-2=3; playoff +3-1=0)
1897 Match vs. Schiffers (+7-1=6)
1898 Cologne, 2nd-4th w/ Charousek & Cohn after Burn
1901 Monte Carlo, 3rd-4th w/ Scheve after Janowski & Schlechter
1906 Lodz (4 players), 2nd after Rubinstein (+5-3=1)
1907 Carlsbad, 'failed badly'

1899 1st All-Russia tnmt, 1st
1900-1 2nd All-Russia tnmt, 1st
1903 3rd All-Russia tnmt, 1st
1906 Match vs. Salwe (winner of 4th All-Russia tnmt; +7-5=3)

In Predecessors IV, Kasparov used the term 'candidate' loosely when referring to two of Chigorin's non-title matches. He called the 1890 Match vs. Gunsberg a 'final candidates match' (p.75), and of the 1893 Match vs. Tarrasch wrote, '[Tarrasch] challenged the recent 'number one' candidate Chigorin to a match' (p.88). While I'm on the subject of candidate events, chess historian Jan van Reek writes,

[1889 New York, the 6th American Chess Congress] can be regarded as the first candidates' tournament. The winner had the obligation to start a match against Steinitz within a month. "Both masters [Chigorin & Weiss] expressed the desire not to be compelled to play a championship match". The Committee decided to cancel the event. [...] The third prize winner Gunsberg was interested in a match against Steinitz in New York. First Gunsberg drew a match against Chigorin in Havana at the beginning of 1890 (11½-11½). Then his challenge was accepted by Steinitz. (see New York 1889 and 1924)

During the early years of the World Championship, there were so many unofficial candidate events that it would be worth documenting them on my page World Chess Championship : Pre-FIDE Events. Watch that space...

01 November 2008

Admin Updates

For the record, I made a few administrative updates. These are mostly of interest to me, but someone else might find something useful.

The collection of gaffes might be of general interest.