Modern Caveman: The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon Blog

2007 World Open Moves To King of Prussia

Bill Goichberg, for reasons which remain unclear, but which likely include easier access by car and better parking, moved the World Open to King of Prussia this year, effectively shutting out area players who do not have a care from the entire tournament, as the only SEPTA bus that runs to the tournament location (the #125) does not run 24 hours on the weekdays, and stops running at 6:30 p.m. on Sundays.  Compare this with the previous few years, where the tournament was held in Center City, or with prior years, when it was held on City Avenue, a few miles away, a less expensive taxi, and much better serviced by SEPTA.

I wanted to stop by the tournament once this year, but the trip was too daunting to justify it.  I could have gone, but a trip to the suburbs is not the same thing as working the tournament into my daily activities in Center City.  This affected not just Philadelphia residents, but anyone coming in on public transportation.  While the bus to the tournament (the #125) did pass by 30th Street Station and is near the bus terminals at the start of its route, it's not the same thing to have to catch your ride every half hour, ride 30+ minutes each way, and then not even be sure the buses will still be running when you want to go back if your games run late. 

Yes, the World Open is an international tournament, but it is also a Philadelphia tournament.  Most years, anyway. 

You can't bet chess at PINNACLE anymore if you're American

This isn't the sports betting day, but it is a big day in the world of offshore gaming, and since Pinnacle sports took bets on chess, it's relevant to chess so I'll cover the story here, today.

As most of the gambling world now knows, Pinnacle Sports has exited the United States market, apparently in some type of deal with the US Justice Department where they agreed to stop taking bets from Americans in return for their freedom.  This seems to represent a new tactic by the United States in that they didn't try to prosecute anyone, but instead used the threat of it to force someone out of business (in the US). 

Horseplayers took a far greater hit than sports bettors today, as Pinnacle had been running what effectively is the only "rebate shop" for the small bettor, paying 7 percent to their customer base.  Sports bettors have other options, but horseplayers do not, unless they want to return to the full-takeout version of the game they play while Pinnacle's remaining customers and people with connections to the few existing offshore rebate shops get the advantage.

I predict that this year, the issue of rebates at the track are going to resurface, as many players who have become accustomed to receiving them think twice about what to do next.  My guess is that, horseplayers being what they are, there won't be too much protest, but it'd be nice to think that for once in their lives, the degenerates who populate the track would make themselves known as a consumer force.  State legislatures should also look at the new reality of horse racing, one that allows people to wager from home, and consider reducing the takeout to 7-10 percent, since this is what the people offshore are able to effectively get after their rebates.

As a handicapper, all these recent events have confirmed for me is that it's a lot easier to function in the United States as a tout than as a gambler or offshore betting affiliate (something else which is illegal in the US but not other countries).  Pinnacle's closing to the US market is going to have a very strong ripple effect, in fact, as many sites were dependent on their advertising money and will now be scurrying to replace it.

What is clear is that the offshore betting world will never be the same, which is sad because I was kind of looking forward to the day where I'd play for the USCL (United States Chess League) and be able to find a betting line on my own games (not to wager, but it would have been funny to see).

The 1/x rule

My chess training and study is based on what I call the 1/x rule, which states:

"For any chess position, the next move has an importance value of 1/x, with x equalling one for the next move."

In other words, the next move in chess is worth 1, two moves ahead is 1/2 (0.50), three is 1/3 (0.33), and so on.  Applied to the start of the game (a position we know we will reach), the first move is worth 1.0, the second 0.5, the third 0.25, and so on.  Once the first move is made, however, the values shift with every subsequent move (move 2 becomes 1.0, move 3 is 0.5, and so on).

The way chess is structured, you will reach the opening in literally every game.  Your first move therefore is by far the most important one, as it sets the tone for the entire game.  Once you've decided on a first move, assuming it's a good one, you can build your repertoire out one move at a time.  The longer you can play perfect moves out of the opening, the more likely your opponent will not, and not only will you win more games in the opening, but you will also find yourself with superior middlegames and endgames in your other play and in your training.

Endgames and middlegames are important, but as with the 1/x rule, they only become important if you get there, and to do that, you must first clear the opening.  The 1/x rule reflects this dynamic.  In football, the same can be said for the line of scrimmage, because if a team cannot hold its own there, it will be more difficult to make the subsequent moves of a play, like protecting the quarterback or giving the receivers time to get open, etc.

For this reason, chessplayers should "frontload" their study towards the opening, and only begin to seriously worry about the middelgame and endgame once they can routinely survive the opening against even the world's best players.  For a serious student of the game, this should take about two to four years, to reach IM/GM strength in the first 5-10 moves of the game.

Is Blitz The Chess Of The Future?

Chess has two BIG problems right now that are only going to get worse: cheating and draws.

Cheating can occur because of outdated tournament rules that made it possible to cheat in the past a little (with a lot of help), but which were not made for an era where anyone with pocket silicon can give GM-level analysis to a tournament game.  In the past, the only players who could have helped you were usually ones who would not risk their titles or their livelihoods to help you win, and the lesser players who might do so couldn't always be counted on to give the best moves.  You might be able to steal away to the bathroom for a peek at an opening book, but that was about it.  For the most part, tournament chess was honest.  Now, however, we have computers, and they make it possible for anyone to cheat or assist a cheater.

In addition to cheating, comptuers have also led to even more of a "draw death" in chess, as more and more openings are solved to a greater degree.  Computers have also shifted the nature of chess study away from "creativity" or uncovering new theories about the game, to memorization and application of existing theory.  Twenty years ago, GMs would play moves that looked good and track their results, but even then they still had to guess whether or not their work was correct.  Today, however, a computer will exhaust all possibilities, and occasionally find resources that had escaped the world's best players of the pre-computer area. 

A good solution to both problems, and to the third problem of lack of television coverage, would be to shift the big money in chess to blitz tournaments that would fit very neatly into the schedules of networks like ESPN and the like.  Draws are kept to a minimum at blitz, cheating is all but impossible, and the public could relate to the time pressure causing key blunders more typical of the major sports, as well as highlight-film brilliance that would come not only from the quality of the moves, but the speed with which they are made.  The NBA has a 24-second shot clock for a reason.  Chess should have strict time limits as well.

Why Chess Favors The Young

You often hear that chess is a young man's game, and that older players cannot keep pace.  While I agree with the former sentiment, the latter is debatable.  As an older player, I have been able to improve my chess game at almost the same rate as when I was younger, but by the same token, I have grown to appreciate the main advantage a young player has, which is the relative weakness of theory compared to when he gets older.

I am almost forty years old.  In my young adulthood, Kasparov had just ascended to the championship, computers had not yet educated everyone on near-perfect chess, and the technique required to play for the world championship was far weaker than that required today.  The same will be true of today's players, who only have to master the theory of 2007 instead of 2017 or 2027, which they will if they take any significant time off.  Gata Kamsky just returned to international play after his own ten-year absence, and now must deal with today's theory instead of that of 1996, when he left. 

Being an older player doesn't mean you won't climb the mountain just as fast, but it does mean you'll have an extra mountain to climb compared to your youth, the one created by all the advances in theory that occurred while you were out doing things other than training at chess for all those years.