strive to be in the top 25 GM's in the world or would you be happy to be
in the 70's or 80's 90;s rank in the world ?
Or would you be happy just to be a GM even if it meant you were one of
the weakest GM.s in the world....

Me , i think id be happy just being a no name GM.....Then again if you
put that much of your life into being a GM then why not try harder to be
one of the best ?

Still for me a no name GM would be ok for me because id still be one of
the elate and that would satisfy me ...

"SAT W-7" wrote in message
...
strive to be in the top 25 GM's in the world or would you be happy to be
in the 70's or 80's 90;s rank in the world ?

Adorjan told me in his interview that maybe the top 30 players in the world
actually earned money by playing chess - he admitted that other opinion says
top 50.

Or would you be happy just to be a GM even if it meant you were one of
the weakest GM.s in the world....

But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for it,
means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that? What
if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?

Me , i think id be happy just being a no name GM.....Then again if you
put that much of your life into being a GM then why not try harder to be
one of the best ?

Still for me a no name GM would be ok for me because id still be one of
the elate and that would satisfy me ...

Yes. It is understandable! I suppose the ultimate question along these lines
would be, "would you like to be like Fischer?" And there's the rub, as
Shakespeare said.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

Adorjan told me in his interview that maybe the top 30 players in the world
actually earned money by playing chess - he admitted that other opinion says
top 50.

From what I've seen, even American GMs can
afford to fly to tournaments, when they want to.
Let's say they want to play in a tourney in Las
Vegas; no problemo: they just hop a plane.

Perhaps GM Adorjan is suggesting that a GM
likely could make *better money* at some other
occupation than chess. The idea that they
can't "make money" is ridiculous; fly here and
I'll show you a guy who charges $35 per hour
for lessons, and three of him would barely make
one GM!

I keep using the term "fly there", because I
think this in itself refutes the assertion that GMs
don't make any money; if that were true, they
would all ride the bus (or hitchhike, as one
local USCF master used to do).


Or would you be happy just to be a GM even if it meant you were one of
the weakest GM.s in the world....

But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for it,
means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that? What
if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?

A lot of it is talent, by which I don't mean
study and hard work, but natural talent; in
other words, visualization skill and the
ability to figure out what the opponent is
trying to do, and just avoid losing blunders.
Oh, and the will to fight on, even after you
make one or two of those!


Me , i think id be happy just being a no name GM.....Then again if you
put that much of your life into being a GM then why not try harder to be
one of the best ?

Still for me a no name GM would be ok for me because id still be one of
the elate and that would satisfy me ...

Yes. It is understandable! I suppose the ultimate question along these lines
would be, "would you like to be like Fischer?" And there's the rub, as
Shakespeare said.

The idea that you can strive to be among the
top players in the world, not merely a no-name
GM, needs to factor in things like innate ability.

Some folks just don't /have what it takes/ to
reach the very top, while others do, but never
get there. From what I've seen, what are
called "weak GMs" simply don't have it in them,
which is why they get stuck; lucky for them, the
FIDE title is permanent, not rating-based.

I've seen people who talked about being a
"former master" or a "former expert"; people
who lost the highest title they ever earned due
to a decline, perhaps due to just getting older.
Looking at them it is hard to feel sorry for the
"weak GMs", who can choose to write chess
books (which people will actually buy!) or give
lessons, no matter how much their results
may decline.

But to train and compete for the world title
is a whole different ball game. Relatively few
have a real shot, no matter how hard they
might work. Some play knowing they have
no real shot at the title-- just to see how far
they can get, or for the opportunity to play
the big name players (in person, not on ICC!).


-- help bot

Peter Szekely springs to mind. This descendent of Dracula could have
been a great GM (according to Judit Polgar), but he settled for
maintaining his rating by very short draws, which thus ensured that he
got invitations to further tournaments. A few weeks all-expenses-paid
holiday in Havana for playing 150 moves? Who wouldn't say yes to that?

On Feb 17, 6:05 am, Offramp wrote:

Peter Szekely springs to mind. This descendent of Dracula could have
been a great GM (according to Judit Polgar), but he settled for
maintaining his rating by very short draws, which thus ensured that he
got invitations to further tournaments. A few weeks all-expenses-paid
holiday in Havana for playing 150 moves? Who wouldn't say yes to that?

I have noticed that there are plenty of so-called
seminars which take place in exotic locales, or
even on luxury cruise ships. Some folks, having
once tasted the sweet smell of success, return
again and again; there is even one of these
advertised in Chess Lies magazine.

I am tired of hunting grizzlies and sharks with
a crossbow and no back-up to save me if things
go wrong (boring!); what do you know about these
descendants of Dracula? Are they legal game?
Is it possible to hunt them with guns (loaded with
silver bullets, of course), or should one use a
wooden stake? Are there many of them (very
challenging), or only a few (boring)? It goes
without saying that I would not hunt out their
caskets by day, like a coward; no, I want to
see the reds of their eyes (yes, reds) before I
strike!

You may have heard that the Wolf-man is no
longer a problem; yup, that was me. And the
Frankenstein monster, too.


-- Sammy Terry

help bot wrote:
Perhaps GM Adorjan is suggesting that a GM likely could make *better
money* at some other occupation than chess. The idea that they
can't "make money" is ridiculous; fly here and I'll show you a guy
who charges $35 per hour for lessons, and three of him would barely
make one GM!

I think Adorjan more likely means that only the top thirty or so GMs
can make a living from just playing chess in tournaments and simuls.
The rest of them make most of their money from giving lessons and so
on.

I keep using the term "fly there", because I think this in itself
refutes the assertion that GMs don't make any money; if that were
true, they would all ride the bus (or hitchhike, as one local USCF
master used to do).

The plane is a no-brainer. To pick a random example, Chicago to Las
Vegas and back by Greyhound takes 36-40 hours each way and costs about
$150 if you buy your ticket two weeks in advance (and about $300 if
you don't). Flying takes four hours each way and costs about $200.
So, if you give a $25 chess lesson on each of the two days of
travelling you save, you break even. And you don't have to spend
72-80 hours on a bus.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Pickled Sword (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a razor-sharp blade but it's preserved
in vinegar and genuinely erotic!

"help bot" wrote in message
...


Chess One wrote:

Adorjan told me in his interview that maybe the top 30 players in the
world
actually earned money by playing chess - he admitted that other opinion
says
top 50.

From what I've seen, even American GMs can
afford to fly to tournaments, when they want to.
Let's say they want to play in a tourney in Las
Vegas; no problemo: they just hop a plane.

Perhaps GM Adorjan is suggesting that a GM
likely could make *better money* at some other

I think he means to earn their income by actually playing chess.

occupation than chess. The idea that they
can't "make money" is ridiculous; fly here and
I'll show you a guy who charges $35 per hour
for lessons, and three of him would barely make
one GM!

.

But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for
it,
means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that?
What
if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?

A lot of it is talent, by which I don't mean
study and hard work, but natural talent; in
other words, visualization skill and the
ability to figure out what the opponent is
trying to do, and just avoid losing blunders.
Oh, and the will to fight on, even after you
make one or two of those!

Is our Greg telling us his own experience, or guessing at that of GMs? I
think there are two pertinent points;

a) if Agassi didn't hit a ball for 6 months, then despite fantastic talent,
he might not make it through the first round of a tennis event - I think
this is a fair analogy of chess preparation to sports preparation

b) while this certainly needs more study, suggestions by Howard Gardner and
Adrian de Groot on 'visualization' need to be taken in. I have been checking
this with some strong chess players, and since we mention Adorjan, his reply
about visualization [was it like a video camera on fast-forward?] was in his
own words, "I do not see the board, I do not see the pieces."

...

Yes. It is understandable! I suppose the ultimate question along these
lines
would be, "would you like to be like Fischer?" And there's the rub, as
Shakespeare said.

The idea that you can strive to be among the
top players in the world, not merely a no-name
GM, needs to factor in things like innate ability.

While that is an interesting aside - my question is more a fantasy one.
Basically, "would you like to be like Fischer?" could be answered at any
period of his life, though possibly one period invokes the next. It's a
nasty question, and I note that here, as elsewhere, no one has yet said
"yes."

Some folks just don't /have what it takes/ to
reach the very top, while others do, but never
get there. From what I've seen, what are
called "weak GMs" simply don't have it in them,
which is why they get stuck; lucky for them, the
FIDE title is permanent, not rating-based.

One last comment on this from Adorjan, was ~ in fact, it was a question I
obtained from him in presenting an interview to Mickey Adams~

if the top 200 or 300 players should all take part in a 13 round
tournament, would you expect the result to accord with Elo?

Adorjan didn't think so, somewhat echoing Khalifman's comment in 1999, and
Khalifman proved it!

Phil Innes

I've seen people who talked about being a
"former master" or a "former expert"; people
who lost the highest title they ever earned due
to a decline, perhaps due to just getting older.
Looking at them it is hard to feel sorry for the
"weak GMs", who can choose to write chess
books (which people will actually buy!) or give
lessons, no matter how much their results
may decline.

But to train and compete for the world title
is a whole different ball game. Relatively few
have a real shot, no matter how hard they
might work. Some play knowing they have
no real shot at the title-- just to see how far
they can get, or for the opportunity to play
the big name players (in person, not on ICC!).


-- help bot

I understand about giving lessons to make money but lets project your
living for a full year can you make it then as a lower rated GM without
having a full time job ?
At the very least money that i can live on is about I,I50 $ a month
, mortgage , bills and gas , food , ect , ect ......That would just
barley get me by i think ?

On Feb 17, 7:19 am, David Richerby
wrote:

I think Adorjan more likely means that only the top thirty or so GMs
can make a living from just playing chess in tournaments and simuls.
The rest of them make most of their money from giving lessons and so
on.

But alas, giving lessons is *easier* than competing
or giving simuls; where is the "sympathy" part-- the
part where we are supposed to feel sorry for the
majority of GMs? (Was that not the gist of the
commentary, the complaint?)


I keep using the term "fly there", because I think this in itself
refutes the assertion that GMs don't make any money; if that were
true, they would all ride the bus (or hitchhike, as one local USCF
master used to do).

The plane is a no-brainer. To pick a random example, Chicago to Las
Vegas and back by Greyhound takes 36-40 hours each way and costs about
$150 if you buy your ticket two weeks in advance (and about $300 if
you don't). Flying takes four hours each way and costs about $200.
So, if you give a $25 chess lesson on each of the two days of
travelling you save, you break even. And you don't have to spend
72-80 hours on a bus.

Yes, that definitely was a "no brain" response, since
obviously only a patzer would arrange his schedule
such as to have no events between Chicago and Las
Vegas, Nevada!

Smart people, like say GMs, can plan a bit better
than that; in fact, even ordinary people can. I know
of one fellow who arranged a nice triangular route,
going from one place to another, each stop being
approximately equidistant, and always ending up
back at his "home base". I notice that there are
lots of chess tournaments in some states, and so
basing oneself in one of those areas would render
cross-country bus rides moot; one local even talks
of a wide variety of such events taking place in
California, around the S.F. Bay area.

Trouble is, these areas may involve competition
from other GMs; but that, too, can be taken into
consideration when planning. One idea is to
steer for events which are likely to involve a big
tie for first; another idea is to figure out who will
be the other GMs, and prepare specifically for
them.

Obviously, there is no reason a GM cannot
afford a car-- a Toyota Yaris perhaps. The bus
comment was to put things into perspective, as
there are worse things, like hitch-hiking to chess
tournaments. The city of Las Vegas, of course,
has other attractions which draw chess players;
I'm talking about the high quality food at very
reasonable prices -- not women, gambling or
booze, of course... . ;D

Like I said, one fellow is charging $35 per hour
here for chess lessons; sorry, but I can't muster
sympathy for the poor chaps who must slave
away for only three times that, while doing
nothing more than teaching chess; it's just not
in me.


-- help bot

On Feb 17, 9:38 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I think he means to earn their income by actually playing chess.

Well, look at Anatoly Karpov: he actually played
chess, as you say, and made very good money.

Others in a similar position chose not to "play",
and made far less. How much of this relates to
chess talent, and how much to individual choice;
I mean, can you give an example of a GM who
chose to play a lot, but who could make no
money? Please do not reach back through the
time machine, grasping at straws like William
Steinitz; that fellow could not even travel via a
Ford model A, let alone airplanes! He may have
owned a bicycle though; you know the kind I
mean: exceedingly tall front wheel, with a tiny
back wheel and no chain since the pedals are
fixed to the front wheel directly.


But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for
it,
means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that?

You mean, like girls and stuff? Gee, I don't have
time for that now, but *after* I get the title -- which is
really mine since about 1962 when the Russkies
conspired against me 'cause I'm so great -- afterward
I will have a house shaped like a Rook, and lots and
lots of girls, ya know, just for decoration. Mainly I
just want to play chess; no, make that: all I ever
want to do is play chess!


What if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?

Um, no. Thank goodness very few grandmasters
have to make such a choice! Many of them have
enough /talent/ to compete at a high level without
having to go all Dr. Frankenstein on us.


a) if Agassi didn't hit a ball for 6 months, then despite fantastic talent,
he might not make it through the first round of a tennis event - I think
this is a fair analogy of chess preparation to sports preparation

Nah. First of all, if his /talent/ is as great as you
suggest, then he would likely still make it through
the /first/ round; its the later rounds that would tend
to show him to be "rusty" -- when he is truly tested
by players of his own caliber.

And secondly, again, /talent/ is not the preparation
of tricky moves in the openings; think of Emanuel
Lasker or Sammy Reshevsky instead. Who cares
if a few recent opening developments are missed?
A talented player does not rely on study and hard
work, but his, um, talent. For an example, just
disable Rybka's openings book; yes, it fumbles a
few things early on, but so what? in the end, this
matters little.


b) while this certainly needs more study, suggestions by Howard Gardner and
Adrian de Groot on 'visualization' need to be taken in. I have been checking
this with some strong chess players, and since we mention Adorjan, his reply
about visualization [was it like a video camera on fast-forward?] was in his
own words, "I do not see the board, I do not see the pieces."

A scientific approach suggests determining
what strong players /actually do/, not what they
/say/ about what they do. Food for munching on.

Heck, if you ask weak players what they do,
they often say they play good moves but are
unlucky. If you ask middling players, they say
much the same thing, pointing to being out-
booked or to a single tactical error, as if *it*
were an offending third party which intervened!
Why should strong players be believed, then?


While that is an interesting aside - my question is more a fantasy one.
Basically, "would you like to be like Fischer?" could be answered at any
period of his life, though possibly one period invokes the next. It's a
nasty question, and I note that here, as elsewhere, no one has yet said
"yes."

Perhaps most people would prefer to be like
the Budda: perhaps a bit overweight, but not
so loony-toony as BF. Balanced, or /in
harmony/, as they say.


One last comment on this from Adorjan, was ~ in fact, it was a question I
obtained from him in presenting an interview to Mickey Adams~

if the top 200 or 300 players should all take part in a 13 round
tournament, would you expect the result to accord with Elo?

Adorjan didn't think so, somewhat echoing Khalifman's comment in 1999, and
Khalifman proved it!

You mean, like an exact arrangement, as per
the FIDE list? That is silly. The unique thing
about such an event would be that the number
of participants would preclude a thorough
openings preparation for any particular opponent.
Instead of "TNs" prepared for particular players,
we would see TNs which are prepared for just
anybody.

I don't think it is wise to mollycoddle those
who may be in denial of the validity of ratings;
to readily adopt their unique interpretations on
this to comfort them, or those who make such
comments regarding chess as an art, rather
than a sport. It is clear to me that had such
players won, some would likely be among
the nasty types who deride their opponents'
characters or laziness, but because they
have lost, they have a certain /need/ to explain,
to justify the (partial) failure.

Let us instead try to remain objective. Prove
that the winners, the world champions and so
forth, were lacking in "art"; prove that these
"losers" had lots more of it, or of superior
quality; prove this *objectively*, my friend.

As for me, I have my own opinions regarding
which players were artful or creative, and it
seems to have nothing to do with their relative
success in competition, except that by being
successful, I was more likely to later see and
study their games, after the fact. A few of the
real artists were world champs-- just accept it.


-- help bot