Hi SwingDoc,

You said:
Let me remind you what the blurb says:  "In August 2008 Andres D. Hortillosa entered the New England Masters. It was a brave choice for an unrated player to compete in such a tough event, but it proved to be an inspired decision; he exceeded all expectations and was rewarded with a FIDE international rating of 2199."

If you visit the 2008 New England Masters, you will see that only 4 players were allowed to participate as unrated. Since it was a title norm tournament, this requirement was strictly observed. The organizer to his credit allowed 4 unrated players albeit at a much steeper price to play with the big boys. I entered the tournament solely to put my system to a critical test. Everyman was very aware of my participation for this very purpose. Like you, the editors were looking for some semblance of evidence. They were skeptical too and who could blame them. As a matter of fact, my purpose of playing there was made known to many before and during the event (to include friends at chessville.com).

Playing nine grueling rounds of chess against 2 IMs (with GM norms) and 7 FMs (some have multiple IM norms under their belt) was a tall order. Winning two games and drawing two for a score of 3 points in the minds of many including mine was a confirmation that the system has some valid claims. Not to mention that I wasted a clearly drawn game in my last round and another drawn game against an IM opponent, and had I prevailed in those games, my rating would have been over 2250. During the early rounds, even titled players were commenting on my solid play. Some even predicted that I might make FM at the end of the tournament as the points came in the first five rounds (just ask FM Galofre - he made the comment). I just had to score another 1.5 points in four games and based on the organizer's calculation, I would make FM. But alas, it was not meant to be. Of course, many wondered to the organizer how come I was unrated. By the way, they called me unrated knowing that I had a USCF rating, another case of blatant dishonesty, I guess.

Unknown to me was the fact that some interested pair of eyes saw the early rounds, and the offer to publish my ideas came literally in the middle rounds. In fact, it became a distraction because even I could not believe my good fortunes. I fell victim to daydreaming in the last round and forgot a simple drawing move which I had already planned to play on the board. It was a classic case of getting drunk with success and concentration became a challenge. Mind you, I checked with the organizer almost daily my rating progress. So the rating would have been over 2200 and the USCF gain would have been even bigger as my esteemed opponent has a rating of over 2300 USCF.

Again, in my limited experience it is not every day that a statistical blip as you would call it would earn anyone a whopping 75 points (counting the wasted drawn game) in one tournament against strong opposition. Winning or drawing a titled player one time in a weekend tournament can be rightly dismissed as one having a good tournament, but not sure about winning two and drawing three in a 9-rd event.

In the book, this is the first evidence. And you are right to suppose that one event is meaningless unless it is duplicated at another time. It is my sincere hope that it can be in the coming events. On this regard, a healthy skepticism is welcome as hope gets no respect over the board but good moves I am told do.

What I argue against vigorously in my other posts is the idea shown to reside in the minds of many that a high rating grants someone exclusive rights to purveyor of chess ideas. After all, the book is not about openings. That is why I used the likes of IM Watson as example though I am not making the case that my work is at par as his, far from it. My book is about a system of improvement. Even absent evidence from my own play, that alone still does not harshly judge the improvement ideas in the book as unwarranted.

I am hoping that others who will employ my system in their own games will provide even stronger and more compelling evidence. The system may work for me but if others cannot duplicate my gains, then the judgment by then is clear, which is my system only works for me. And this is really the heart of the matter. I have numerous testimonials from sincere seekers who have read my work that it made a difference in their games already.

I am surprised that you would tell me that I have misunderstood the other fellow's points. I didn't. In fact, my postings as a response were answers to his objections because I understood them in the first place. My other postings were to set things straight so we can frame the discussion properly. I want us to remain aware as to where the historical ratings stand within the notion of cause and effect.

The whole thing was a personal experiment. I am making a case that adult players even late in life can still improve in chess provided they are equipped with a sound improvement plan. My chess thinking process is the enabling force of the said plan.

And your point that the blurb is misleading is hard to understand because how else would you describe my situation as I was indeed without FIDE rating and in fact, was listed as such? The tournament was mainly a FIDE event.

I also labored to mention that my USCF rating graph and my rating history will be discussed in the book. To repeat, it will be used as my baseline for comparative analysis. And you keep pointing it out as evidence that I have not shown any improvement. Again, you are the one who still misses the point. The book argues or embarks to prove that from here on my rating graph will show the fruits of my improvement courtesy of my system. I hate to belabor this point but this seems to escape your notice. My historical USCF rating is not evidence for the book except that it is used as the departure point.

Lastly, I really hope you would read the book but only by paying for it. I understand your economic point as motivation for trying to ascertain if your purchase will be worthless or not. But to me it is akin to thievery and brings to mind the question of fairness. If you think the blurb is dishonest, I do not know why browsing before buying can be anything less. Writers have mouths to feed like everyone else. However, it is another issue for discussion in another place.

Thank you Schaakhamster for your fair and insightful comments.

Best wishes,
Andres D. Hortillosa
Improving Player

Mr. Hortillosa,

I think you misunderstood anitllian's points. In order for a discerning consumer to purchase your work, he would like some evidence that you can improve his chess. What evidence can you provide him to that end? You've written a lot, so I'll try to hit the high points and explain why I personally don't think you've answered this question.

1. Your rating is not very high, but many excellent coaches are not near the top of the rating lists.

These coaches have built reputations based on their pupils' results. As far as we know, you are your only student. So the only way we can judge your ability to improve someone's chess ability is by looking at your performance. Dvoretsky is a highly popular author because everyone can see the success of his students. In other words, for us random folk to take you seriously as an author of a chess improvement book, we need evidence from either your results or your students' results. 

2. You gained 60 points in one event.

First, congratulations on an excellent event! The problem is that every player has good and bad tournaments. Say Josh's true strength is 2000. If we look at only one event, that particular rating performance could be anywhere from 1800-2200. Does that mean that his actual strength constantly wildly fluctuates? Of course not. Many, many non-chess factors affect the way we play on any given day. That's why we have to look at a player's rating trend over time in order to determine if they are getting stronger, weaker, or staying the same. This is by far the most bothersome thing about your rating. I, as an outsider cannot discern any actual improvement since 1997/98. 1 event is worth very little. For instance, how do I know that your recent success isn't another statistical blip like you've had before?



3. Everyman published it so it obviously has value

I wish this were true, but countless ... non-beneficial books are published every year. 

4. Everyman's blurb is not dishonest or misleading.

Let me remind you what the blurb says:  "In August 2008 Andres D. Hortillosa entered the New England Masters. It was a brave choice for an unrated player to compete in such a tough event, but it proved to be an inspired decision; he exceeded all expectations and was rewarded with a FIDE international rating of 2199."

This is clearly misleading. You were not an unrated player. You did not have a FIDE rating, but that is very different than being unrated. If I say "I'm unrated" because I don't have a British Chess rating, but have a FIDE and USCF rating, is that dishonest/inaccurate? Of course it is.

To sum up, we consumers have no idea if your book is a gem or waste of time. Since you're not a titled player, you do have more hurdles to earn our trust (right or wrong thought that may be). Since you haven't demonstrated real, sustained improvement, we don't know if you can help us to improve. Your book may be excellent, but without being able to browse through it at Barnes & Noble or seeing some evidence that your plan/system will benefit me, why would I spend money on it?

Hi Antillian,

If my system will help someone get from 1200 to 1600 or even 2000 USCF, then it will have fulfilled its claims and served its purpose. Clearly, this book is not for you. I am not sure if you are aware but the majority of chess players have an average rating of less than 1400 USCF, possibly even less. The target audience of the book is under 2000.

This may surprise you but I know fine coaches who are under 1700 that make better coaches than those over 2200. This is a known fallacy in most people's thinking and apparently including yours. You think that for someone to be qualified to write a book on chess improvement, he or she must first get to a certain rating preferably master level. You can no more be so wrong. Most players who are master level and beyond especially grandmasters did not have the same struggle, which plague average players like me in the aspect of chess improvement. The rise in most cases is sudden or meteoric. It is almost impossible to delineate a point of breakthrough. The improvement Yermolinsky was talking about in his book was the kind that gets his kin with respect to chess skills from IM to GM. Find me a 1400 who employed his ideas and is now an 1800.

Important of all, this is not the kind of improvement I am talking about in the book.

The main thesis of the book finds its anchor on a method or system that will help adult players avoid losing their games early due to blunders. The book disclaims the magic to make you a master. It simply argues that the system it espouses will help most player of any age avoid game-ending errors. My other goal is to bring back players who cannot seem to get beyond 1400 back into tournament chess. Many left mainly because of insufferable disgust over their inability to cure themselves from the ailment of hanging pieces during games. Chess is no fun even for die-hards when you keep giving away pieces even in winning positions.

You are almost making an argument that since I have only saved a couple of hundred thousand dollars that I unqualified to teach others to become effective money savers based on the fallacious argument that they are not in millions.

For most players, a rise of 100 points in rating is bona fide evidence of improvement. Or just being able to carry the game into the ending is a satisfactory measure of improvement.

But I appreciate your point of view. I am curious, for the sake of honest discussion, the threshold number that you will accept as evidence of improvement. Will a gain of 100 points prove acceptable to you?

Would you accept GM Kaufman's recent win at the Senior World Ch and the grandmaster title as evidence of improvement despite his decline in ratings from his own peak? Just curious.

Best wishes,

Andres D. Hortillosa

As the author of the upcoming book, I am posting this response not as an answer to some snarky comments by some but to set the facts straight. I also do not want my silence to be taken as guilt or indifference which may have an effect of barring others from duly benefiting from the book. After all, the book extols the benefits of correcting errors or biases in chess thinking process.

Firstly, if you already have a system for chess improvement, then clearly this book is not for you. 

Secondly, having a relatively high rating does not preclude the need for improvement unless you are satisfied with where you are now. I heard GM Wesley So speaking about immersing himself in books after winning Group C at Wijk ann Zee last month. One is helped if he notes that absent any further improvement, he will find everyone catching up soon enough. For certain seekers, however, a sounder improvement plan may just what they need to propel their rise to even loftier heights. If high rating is indicative of perch and privilege, what is the point of someone the likes of GM Aagaard and many others having a paid coach? We have yet to hear GM Carlsen denigrate GM Agdestein in any chess literature because the esteemed trainer is many points below his. And we have yet to see GMs with ratings much higher than notable authors IM Dvoretsky and IM Watson berating their works because they lack the required titles. Most of my influential books were from the pen of IMs (the late Purdy, Watson, Palliser, Vigus, Vigorito, Greet, Silman, and Taylor).

Thirdly, have we forgotten the sage advice to “not judge a book by its cover?” Well, in this case, by its title and marketing blurb.

Some of the posted comments made erroneous assumptions about the book. The book is a personal improvement plan now deemed possibly able to help other chess strugglers like me. The improvement plan, of which the core material is my chess thinking system, is fairly young. It became a formalized process just a year ago. It is still maturing. Being a process, it is meant to evolve. As yet, I struggle in applying consistently my own system in every game. At least, there is a process to speak of unlike before.

Meanwhile, it is already showing some promise of benefit. One person noted that I gained some 75 points in 2008 before losing some of that recently in small weekend tournaments. By anyone’s measure, 75 points is a handful. And with that, I also achieved a FIDE rating of 2199 (currently at 2141). Now, the losses in points can be easily explained and will be discussed in the book. I will even include practical suggestions on how to avoid losing them if all you care is your rating. For me, one thing is sure: my chess improvement plan will take me beyond my 2101 USCF I achieved in 1994.

I also wish to remind another forum commentator that the book is not for the US market alone. In fact, it will be released first in Europe in October. The book is meant for world-wide consumption as the need for chess improvement does not reside in the US alone unless you are like some Americans who think the world is the US. The 2199 rating is not a misrepresentation or dishonesty by Everyman. You simply have to avoid selective reading. The publisher blurb says that after the 2008 New England Masters, I received a FIDE rating of 2199. It does not mention or hint about my USCF rating. I entered the tournament as unrated and my performance aided by my chess thinking process earned me, once again the 2199 FIDE rating. By the way, talking about chess improvement, Chris Bird, tournament organizer noted that I gained the most USCF ratings (62 points) of all the participants. 

Ratings are public records. You can easily check them. The graph of my rating progress from 1990 to 2008 will be in the book. On the contrary, my historical rating is used as evidence that despite my Expert rating for some 5 years, I am of the throng that though viewed as expert by rating yet was simply playing chess without a clear thinking process. No worked-out repertoire, poor endgame knowledge and shallow theoretical knowledge got me the Expert rating and improvement beyond it was impossible. I languished close to my floor for years until this process which in my mind is a breakthrough for me. Now, I am sharing it to others who wish to improve and once again enjoy the game.

And please do not malign the publisher for not doing its research. Did you really think Everyman was that foolish to risk its sterling reputation for a buck? A little thought here would really clarify some qualms towards the book. Yet, a better reaction would be to praise its GM and IM editorial staff for at least looking at the manuscript without bias and prejudice because it was submitted by an improving and untitled player. Be grateful - there is hope for you as well. Now, the question should be: what did the commissioning editor (GM Emms) and editorial staff saw in the manuscript that it would deserve to get its share in the sun? Very curious now, aren’t you?

Chess players are very fair-minded folks and the few tilted comments here have not changed that characterization a shade in my mind.

Dragan Glas made a point that this is about “Joe ‘everyman’ Chessplayer” writing a how to improve book from the mouth of one who knows the struggle of finding the right path. He is making a valid case that the subject is too foreign an experience for your average GM. This is partly true because the GM could be writing about improvement from the viewpoint of a GM for other GMs to emulate. If you want to know my repertoire, I have games in your database. I am sure you have Chessbase or NicBase. Be forewarned, however, those are games of long ago. The only reliable source of my still evolving repertoire is the 2008 New England Masters and the 2008 Pan American Championship; these two are the only valid tournaments where I started employing my touted system. Know also that it requires time for this system to become second nature.

Thank you Smyslov_Fan for your nice comment and for counting me as a friend. But wait just another year and let’s see what happens. Also, you said: “Andy's own performance arc defies the very notion the title of the book suggests.  That is, he has not shown significant improvement since he retired from the military.” The performance arc is the baseline not the evidence of the improvement. When you read the book, you will understand. If 2199 FIDE and a gain of 62 USCF rating points in one tournament against titled players (FMs and IMs) is not proof of improvement for you, I do not know what is. It would be nice to know your real name though.

My answer to Antillian’s comments is that you have to place the book in the right frame of reference. The valid field of evidence is the 2008 New England Masters and future tournaments of similar kind. I am playing in the March edition of North American Chess Association organized by Sevan Muradian and the Copper State International in May. Let’s see how I do in these tournaments. The other smaller tournaments, where I am the highest seed or in the top 3, are meaningless as evidence because the time controls are faster and shorter. Most of my losses in these tournaments were due to time pressure. Plus, no rating gap can protect you from the law of average or time pressure. An accidental loss for any reason can be costly, rating-wise. I enjoy the game and I support small tournaments especially when you hold an office as VP of your club. I also enjoy mentoring lower-rated players as people who know me can attest. 

Please do not think that I am displeased by the discussion thread. In fact, it is good for the book. I am sure the comments were made without malice and the tone was set by erroneous assumptions.
Let us not forget that books are about ideas. We admire and follow good ideas for their own sake not from where they come from. If that cannot be helped, then you need more than a sound chess thinking process.

My challenge to you is to seek your own fortunes out there in the marketplace of ideas. If you think you have some ideas worth seeing in print, have some courage and submit it to publishers. I wish you well.

My hope is that there will be plenty of discussion about the merits of the ideas in the book once it is out. Then all vigorous criticisms will be most welcome.

Andres D. Hortillosa
Improving Player

It is even stranger that Everyman accepted this project. It is clear the author has not demonstrated evidence of the improvement that he will be touting in this book. 

The issue is not that he is not a master. If he had simply shown the same kind of improvement that the writer of "Rapid Chess Improvement" had, then there would probably have been an audience among lower rated players for a book like this. (Perhaps Hortillosa should have also retired when he reached his peak   ) 

So by what other means is he qualified to write such a book? Surely Everyman could do the same research on the author that the posters on this board have done. If they have done their research, they are being really dishonest.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/07/09 at 06:45:25:


Well put, SF. I certainly bear the author no ill will. I hope he does improve. I'm just not too thrilled with Everyman and their hype of the author.

Yeah, that blurb is extremely misleading. The author has  played in 180 USCF rated tournaments since Feb 1992. At the risk of angering Smyslov, why would I buy a book from a player that I would be a significant favorite against? I know plenty of players who bounce off their rating floor and that's pretty much always a bad thing. His is 1900 btw.

http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12455466

Greetings,

Perhaps.

Equally, it could be a case of getting Joe "everyman" Chessplayer to write a book about "what helped me to improve", rather than GMs and IMs - whose ratings the vast majority of chessplayers haven't a hope in reaching.

The "Zero To Hero" type of book.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas