.

Allen -

My question is whether you are trying to win this bet, or achieve a certain mastery of chess.

If you are just trying to win the bet, I like your side. You could simply learn something like the Colle for white and the pirc/KID for black (openings where your moves are relatively similar regardless of your opponent's setup), and learn the openings well enough to get to a playable position with very thematic tactics that would occur over and over again, and practice them enough that you would probably be a favorite especially at what you describe as "rapidish" time controls where you would build up some time edge in the opening. The combination of a likely very familiar opening/middlegame, and time odds in a rapid match should be enough for you to win. A year's experience of playing is enough to get the hang of winning pretty solidly won positions.

If you are trying to reach a level of chess mastery and basically just trying to get as good or better than him, I don't like your odds.

Where are you playing online? What if the game is a draw?

At your current level, not worth it. You'd be just as good finding a few guys at the local chess club and asking them if they'll look over games with you - most people want study partners too (though they can be admittedly flaky).

Care to elaborate more on the drawbacks?

Assuming he could choose between random amateurs at his club to go over a game with him, and a good coach who makes a living from going over games and explaining it to lower rated players, wouldn't he be better off with the latter?


Also he could still do what you suggested even with coaching.

Yeah he should definitely hire a live coach considering he's rich and can afford it. Guys at a chess club might be able to find what moves he made mistakes on, but a chess coach will be better equipped to find the underlying reasons behind why he made those mistake so he can better correct them.

Also in future tournaments he should in higher sections, starting with U1600 and then going up to U1800, regardless of results in U1600. Just because you have a tournament where you get a lower score than you expected doesn't mean you're not improving, there's significant variance in a tournament that is only 5-7 games.

If you aren't getting odds you are a huge underdog. I mean it's certainly possible with huge dedication to get to around something 1600-1800 strength and then get lucky and win the game because he's rusty, and if there is exceptional talent maybe the odds can increase slightly.

What do you suggest I do with my free time? I agree on one level that using the time to learn airplane pilotry, culinary arts, computer hacking or mountain climbing (I'm sure I could beat Howard at that) would seem to be more rewarding and maybe I'll do one of those each of the next four years. I also have a strong inclination to sit around for a year trying to get the high score on some video game. I think people at cocktail parties would be more interested to hear I'm trying to become a chess expert in record time than doing that. After all, even though chess is just an arbitrary and perhaps silly game it still has a real cultural and aesthetic significance to a large set of people.

Also, insisting that my chosen hobby be performed better by man than machine at the highest level, or that I can become world class seems overly restrictive. Weightlifting? Can't compete with a crane. Why swim when we have boats and Micheal Phelps can't even beat a guppy? I probably can't become the best in the world at anything and although poker is obviously my best shot at that, I really can't ever prove it or even notice a difference in results if I increase my ability by a few tiny notches. What's so special about the world anyway? What's wrong with best in the city, my street, or the two plus two chess forum?

I LOLed

gg Sklansky

The fact is, the reason most people take years to get good at chess is because they study sporadically and/or inefficiently. If Allen really studies plays several hours every day, even just 20 to 25 hours a week, and Howard doesn't play chess at all, I think it is totally reasonable that Allen could reach Howard's level in one year's time. Playing a lot of G15 to G30 online combined with study can significantly improve a class player's strength.

I doubt it's true, but if it really is, can you lend me some?

The fact remains that you are the only poker champion I ever heard of who ever embarked on the quest to move from good to very good in chess at the expense of six hours a day. To move in the other direction is not so uncommon.

One alternative for next years quest has three advantages over this one. You start at a much higher level percentilewise. The guy you bet with is much older than Howard and thus has a lot more rotting brain cells. The side benefits from getting really good can much more likely be put to good use whether you win or lose the bet.

Obviously I am talking about taking the ninety minute math SAT where you and I both get twenty minutes.

Yeah there's a ton of side benefits to learning how to solve 7x^2+6y = 3x-14y

David is right. Forget chess, people at cocktail parties will be hugely impressed when they find out you're spending a year studying to get a high score on the math SAT.

I might be mistaken, but isn't math section is SAT ridiculously easy?

I have no doubts that both Allen and David would score 800/800 without any difficulty, so what's the point..?

IMHO, chess is the "most beautiful game" and it wouldn't even matter if you never "mastered" the game or ever get a USCF rating above 2000. If you do get significantly better, you can better appreciate GM games, endgame studies and any analysis; even if you don't, there's also literature about the history of the game and players that is accessible to almost anyone. As long as chess in enjoyable, you can even be a "patzer" ( consider all the golfers in the world ).

It really doesn't matter too much if you win/lose your prop bet, does it? [ Perhaps, it gives more motivation. ]

Welcome to the "world of chess" and all the best in your chess endeavors!

Who is this Sklansky guy? He seems to be trolling this thread

Not so easy to get 800 in twenty minutes. That's less than 14 seconds per question. I'd bet fewer than 5% of math Phds could achieve that.

Interestingly your reaction is discussed in my new book, DUCY, in the chapter called Friendly Figure Skaters. This forum is specifically mentioned.

Ban him, imo.

Good luck with your quest -- your study plan sounds pretty rigorous. I'd say that it's important to compete often enough so that you know when you are starting to plateau and can change your routine. In this way, the training is not so different than anything else.

Well said, and easy to agree with. Even more, who cares about "best"? Sometimes hobbies -- and life -- are about personal pleasure and goals. I do not mock those who run marathons because the bus (or a bicycle) is faster, nor for failing to finish in under 125 minutes.

It seems odd to have a sense of failure which compels one to compete only in those arenas where one can be the best (because of a defined and achievable maximum rank).

I imagine Allen would not have embarked upon this if the only pleasure he would receive was in the moment of victory in that final game.

It sounds like its going to be a blitz match between the two of you. So don't forget to play a ton of blitz. Study a couple openings, maybe KIA for white (first moves are pretty much standard no matter what he plays, or if you want to make it a bit more fun, the kings gambit. For black, idk.

Obviously I am talking about taking the ninety minute math SAT where you and I both get twenty minutes.[/QUOTE]


Everyone knows you've done the math SAT more times than Howard's played chess. I decline.

i did that and i am horrendous at chess

Re: Video Games

You could get the record on any number of random video games that nobody plays, so that would be pretty easy. Check Twin Galaxies. Going for Donkey Kong, Guitar Hero 3, LadyBug, or anything that has been kill screened would be next to impossible in a year, but many would be trivial to beat. I think Frogger is one of the most well known games without an astronomical high score, so maybe that one could be a decent goal. Going for a perfect run on Legend of Maxx on DDR might be a goal that also gets you in good condition!

While everything you said is true, a lot of the questions are like 1 second to answer so you end up banking a lot of time. And high level math isn't even on the SAT, so the Phd doesn't have an advantage in that respect either.