Thank you Dr. Kodos. Your point is well taken. Honestly, the postings are getting old.

By the way, the last post was for you Mr. Kylemeister. I suggest you do a little research about FIDE rating rules. It may even inspire you to try what I did if you happen to be FIDE unrated.

I have a section in the book about ratings and some of these quirks  will be there as well. I even have a bizarre idea for US players that when strictly followed would only mean a steady rise in ratings. And there's only one way to find out what it is.

Best wishes.

If your work is good it will stand on it's own.


Let it breath.

Dear Smyslov_Fan,

Thank you for your kind note. I missed what you were saying in your last post because sometimes I tend to skim things when I get too busy.

Now that I know who you are, I see the wisdom of your arguments. I had no idea that you are the same good friend from Colorado. For you folks who frequent this site: Smyslov_Fan is not just a very rational person, he is a good (consistent) chess player too.

In fact, if he wrote a book of a similar title for the same audience, I would be the first to say that he is fully qualified to do so. He is quite modest though as I know him as someone who really know a lot of theory even back. We actually had some dramatic encounters while I lived in Colorado. We also had similar experiences of beating strong players, including state champions, even as mere Experts. I left Colorado in 2001 so it's been 8 years now since we last spoke.

You know I might even include one of our games in the book.

The thing is the player my friend Smyslov_Fan knew is now a different player. Back then, I had no opening repertoire. And the theory I knew was very narrow. I never quite understood some opening schemes. He will tell you this to be true. Putting his earlier comments about my play it context, I would consider them now as delightful compliments. I was busy doing back to back graduate degrees.

If he thinks I am decent then, just wait till this improving player gets to play some more. Now that I have the means to pay for hired help, including subscription to this site, and travel to bigger tournaments (benefit of getting those graduate degrees), my game is now at a different level.

Also, this book is a labor of love for me. Essentially I am losing money writing the book to be honest with you. The week I am absent from work because of tournaments is money wasted. Now that I have fulfilled my commitments to help organizers of small local tournaments, I will only now just play in those norming-type tournaments against titled players that are 9 rounds or more in duration. The prospect of playing in five of these a year excites me to no end.

It is good to finally caught up with you good friend.

Andres D. Hortillosa
Improving Player

Hi Smyslov Fan,

The proof of improvement is a valid issue for debate. I agree with Antilian that I should have waited for more evidence like getting back to 2100 or even past 2200 before writing the book.

But it is too late now for that. More proof of improvement is yet to come for my system. The proof is not my quarrel here. It is the accusation or suggestion that there was intent on the part of the publisher to mislead people. In addition, the idea that the publisher did not do due diligence in its research is preposterous as argued in my earlier postings.

Everyman is a producer of books for worldwide consumption. As pointed out earlier, it is not solely targeting the US market. And the blurb was simply stating fact because the 2008 New England Masters was in fact a FIDE event and players were seeded based on their FIDE ratings not US or Canadian or British ratings. It is also a matter of fact that the three other unrated players (classified and listed as unrated by the wall chart/organizer) have higher USCF ratings than me.

But you are correct to argue and so as others that one tournament is not enough to cleanly argue for true improvement. However, we are nitpicking the issue. I think you and the others are talking about a long and demonstrations of consistent improvement. A tournament spike is easier in a 5-round event but as many of you would attest, longer tournaments like 9 rounds is in itself a valid demonstration of improvement because of its length and the strength of competition. In most 5-rounders, a player may only get to play against 3 strong players. In my case, I played against all 9 titled players with GM norms and IM norms.

However, this is still besides the point. Proof or no proof, I am offering a systematic plan of improvement. Some truths are true without being proven to be true. The improvement plan I am proposing has to be judged in itself and not necessarily by personal results. The presence of strong evidence in my play would only make the case for the system stronger but not make its case for being. I could have written the plan and have it published under someone's name who has a record.

Yet again, you are missing the point that the book is for players under 2000. And the bulk of the target market is under 1600. Having been rated Expert for 38 months is probably enough evidence that I can at least help someone who is below 2000 improve at chess.

Best wishes,
Andres D. Hortillosa

sans asperger's

adh2050 wrote on 02/18/09 at 04:48:03:


Dan Heisman is quite articulate, but it is hard to take someone seriously who's rating is kept afloat by an artificial rating floor. If one cannot maintain a competitive rating by fair means, then do not compete.  

For those who do not understand what I mean by rating floor, it simply means that Dan Heisman's rating is protected from falling below a certain level regardless of how often he gets crushed. Such protection, no matter how well intended, calls the entire rating system into disrepute.

In my experience the main reasons why adults find it hard to improve is linked heavily to ego, a lack of openmindedness, stubborness and a pseudo intellectual need to question and overthink everything. Of course work, family and other committments play a role too, but somehow these seem to be less of an obstacle to overcome than the other factors I mentioned.

An untitled player with a low rating writing a book on how to improve at chess will be met, and rightly so, with scepticism. This is not to say that the effort may not be good, but in the absence of credibility by performance in tournament play then the author will have to work much harder to establish the readers trust.

Good luck with your book.

Tops

 

Hi swingdoc, et al,

Thank you for your best wishes. I wish the same for you. Please do understand I have no ill feelings towards you. I am glad that you now realize where I coming from. However, to say that I am “quite invested in this book” is an understatement as its author.

I frequent the forum for opening ideas but I have only posted twice since my membership until I saw the discussion thread. My issue is not about fair criticisms of the ideas in the book, but that is not the construct set by earlier postings. I will allow you to question my chess credentials but please do not assail my character. It is also prudent to discriminate in your investments because like you I bought some really useless books in the past, including the ones by grandmasters. I also own books which were extremely beneficial in my own chess growth written by mere mortals. Dan Heisman’s and Sunil Weeramatry’s works are fine examples.

If you review previous postings, you will see what I am talking about with regards to the tone of the postings. It got worse when my credibility and Everyman’s was questioned. Suggesting dishonesty on the publisher’s part was a stretch. It is known that civility and fair argumentation are recklessly abandoned when people opine behind their handles. Please, let us restrain ourselves with our words because they have consequences. And some consequences may not be to our liking.

Again, criticisms about the book are fine but not “slanderous” remarks. I am sure this forum has some rules. I am surprised the moderators have chosen to remain quiet until now.

I am sure you are a decent person but I have yet to see you retract your views regarding your concern about the publisher’s blurb. For the record, never was there any intent on anybody’s part to mislead people. The lingua franca in the chess world is FIDE rating. The tournament the blurb describes was a FIDE event and was using FIDE rules exclusively. It got rated by USCF but only as a secondary benefit. In fact, most dual or triple rated players were listed only by their FIDE ratings. No players rated less than 2100 FIDE except four unrated were allowed to participate. Other events like the 2008 Berkeley International strictly limited entrants to 2200 FIDE. I wanted to play in it to seek for more improvement evidence (I call data sets in the book) but was disqualified by rating – and sadly by one point.

The comment about someone finding my rating graph is ridiculous as if this is not known or it is hidden in the book. And the undertone the find was suggesting deserves censure. I expected a reaction like this: “Wow, look at this patzer. He’s been languishing in his floor for years though once rated as Expert for 38 months. He suffers and agonizes over the same struggles to improve his game. He said he got very tired of it and look at what he just did. How did he do it?”
The follow up comment about the publisher not doing its research was fraught with absurdity so untypical of most chess players I know. It took over eight months and pages of sample drafts (imagine the work) before the work got accepted for a contract. In addition, the author’s credentials say that I was member of the All-Army Chess Team ten times. So to suggest then that the above line “unrated” means without USCF rating is simply outrageous.

All in all, I am thankful for the interest or disinterest in the book because clearly the discussion threads are getting some decent views from readers. What more can I ask? However, my aim is to limit the discouragement of those who are sincerely seeking for ways to improve their game from looking at the book even before its arrival.

Best wishes,
Andres D. Hortillosa
Improving Player