Why not? You're more than welcome.

<<That's very true. Still the problem is how to differentiate between the essential and the superfluous?> I think this depends on the time remaining on the clock. Clock time remaining determines if you should be using "blitz logic" or "slow logic".>

I'm far more interested in the "slow logic" than in "blitz logic". The basic rationale is that one should learn to walk before trying to run (I mean any time control, not only blitz). However, just 'walking' proves to be incredibly difficult.

If I try to improve some details or features in the design of a machine, algorithm, data structure, etc. and the modification turns out to be a mistake I can undo it. However, we cannot take back a move in a real game.

You don't need to be a doctor to suffer some kind of "professional deformation".

<By iterative I assume you mean methodical as in an algorithm, testing each try.>

Yep. And error control is usually an essential part of many iterative algorithms. As long as one can reduce it below the prescribed tolerance in the long or preferably not so long run everything is ok.

I meant that when in a real game and in doubt if the chosen move eventually fails then it is not possible to go back and try any of the alternatives.

<<In chess one should be accurate always and this makes an essential difference.> I think accuracy is needed whenever you have competing main candidates. But if a line is simply winning you don't have to be totally accurate.>

Accuracy is important in every position, no matter whether one is about to start a combination, an attacking or defensive maneuver or a simplification to enter the endgame. For example, there can be some hidden details in that endgame which ruin the victory or even the draw.

<Accuracy is important in every position, no matter whether one is about to start a combination, an attacking or defensive maneuver or a simplification to enter the endgame. For example, there can be some hidden details in that endgame which ruin the victory or even the draw.> I disagree--accuracy is not important in every position. My Chess instructor (a master) teaches that all you need to do is prove a move is best (or even adequate) in a reasonable time. If a move is clearly best, it's a waste of time further proving it.

I meant that competition chess game is kind of a sequence of one shot situations while in many other activities it is possible to redo something and to improve it someway to avoid trouble.

<Since I am usually playing no more than G/15, if I see an interesting try I spend a moment looking it over and if it looks interesting I play it.>

One of the useful aspects of shorter time controls is to experiment opening plans (so you try a move to see what happens) to gain some experience, perhaps very superficial but better than plain ignorance, a most familiar feeling to me.

<<Accuracy is important in every position, no matter whether one is about to start a combination, an attacking or defensive maneuver or a simplification to enter the endgame. For example, there can be some hidden details in that endgame which ruin the victory or even the draw.> I disagree--accuracy is not important in every position. My Chess instructor (a master) teaches that all you need to do is prove a move is best (or even adequate) in a reasonable time. If a move is clearly best, it's a waste of time further proving it.>

If a move is better or even adequate then it is more accurate than a number of others and therefore accuracy matters. Perhaps my concept of accuracy in this context is a bit loose.

<Play for the easy and obvious win and your opponent will probably resign.>

He started playing blitz tournaments for children last year and got a trophy in almost all of them. Not too bad.

However, I'd prefer he doesn't pursue anything serious about chess, even if I knew he would become eligible for a sports scholarship in a top notch university.

Thanks a lot!

<This is all a testament to his teacher...you! :-) >

The first time he won a tournament is particularly memorable to me: he managed to beat out the favorites (two children whose families emigrated from ex-soviet republics, another from China and a couple of nationals, all of them very aggressive players) with a perfect score.

A curious anecdote happened in the fourth round. He was already playing at board #1 and his next opponent was a girl. I noticed that her granny sat down very close to their table but didn't give much importance and continued reading a newspaper. I noticed that the tournament arbiter announced the beginning of the round but read a few lines more and then had a look at my son.

To my surprise both players were standing since the game was already over. I thought "well, it doesn't matter, this girl is probably a very good player because she reached board #1 and surely caught him in an opening trap".

Then he came to me as if everything was ok and told me that he mated her in less than a dozen moves. I was perplexed. He then told me that the girl didn't even know the very basics and her granny was pointing out the moves but missed a relatively simple mate threat!

<It's tough to get far in Chess but if he makes expert or master, he could win real money in tournaments!>

In Spain you can get about 200€ if you win a local rapid tournament, not too bad for eight hours of work, but you need at least IM strength to have realistic chances.

<I would encourage him to reach for his dream.>

You had to take part in the bigger open tournaments to find such prizes here but then you must be a quite strong GM to have chances.

<I would go along with whatever current dream he has and let him have fun with it.>

User: dzechiel