Questioning Titled Chess Players

Although there have been many controversial opinions (on chess improvement) in the chess world, none have really been answered by the best of the best. Until now, in this blog. I asked six questions to five different titled players ranging from a national master to a grandmaster. Instead of the usual interview questions, I asked these masters some hot topics that have been criticized and supported over the year. 

Although before we get started, huge thanks to @Lightning who inspired me to start this idea! His "Questioning Non-Chess Players" series has given me the idea to question the opposite side of the spectrum. Also, other huge thanks @Eragon, the owner of the Seminar For Patzers  discord server. His server features players from beginner to grandmaster, weekly tournaments, giveaways, simuls, and more, that can bring your chess to the next level. Enjoy!

Question One

Me: What is your name and title?

Titled Player #1: NM Isaac Wang

Titled Player #2: NM Alex Wang

Titled Player #3: IM Ming Lu

Titled Player #4: FM Ryan Amburgy

Titled Player #5: GM Andrew Tang

Question Two

Me: Who is your GOAT of chess and why?

NM Isaac Wang: Magnus Carlsen cause he's humble, funny, and just the best of the best of the best. 

(Makes sense, extremely humble and makes chess entertaining. I agree that he is the "best of the best of the best," since he has really shown his dominance for a decade at the top level. Although one thing I will say, is that one could say that Kasparov was just as dominant.)

NM Alex Wang: My GOAT of chess is probably Ding Liren because from what I've seen, he plays really well against Magnus. Ding most of time draws, with a few losses and occasional wins but being able to draw the world champion a lot is pretty impressive.

(Well uh... that is definitely an extremely hot take. Ding Liren is clearly one of the "strongest" players to ever live, but his accolades..? Yeah... Ding hasn't won a world championship, or candidates. Although he has his 100-game unbeaten streak, and if we give him some time, there just might be a slight chance he'll end up in my GOAT conversation.)

IM Ming Lu: Hans Niemann, chess speaks for itself.

(Makes sense. Normally there isn't a correct answer in the GOAT discussion. Although I think Ming has found the answer with much reasoning to prove behind it. Niemann's chess speaks for itself.)

FM Ryan Amburgy: Magnus of course lmao.

(Fair enough, you can't go wrong with having Magnus as your GOAT, he's dominant, he has the accolades, highest rated player of all time, and a very likeable personality.)

GM Andrew Tang: Magnus, it should be harder and harder to be so dominant over others in the computer era but he just is.(This is an extremely important reason on why I think that Magnus is simply above Kasparov. Kasparov may have won more championships, and was "more" dominant, although he did it in an era without computers. Nowadays, the top GM's have analyzed everything to the endgame using computers, and Magnus's ability to squeeze water out a stone is something we've never seen before.)

Question Three

Me: What was the hardest part about achieving your title that the average chess player wouldn't consider?

NM Isaac Wang: How hard chess is and that getting master requires so much persistence, hard work (hours in a day), and the "warriors sprit". 

(True, getting master is difficult, and even though you've studied hard, you can still have a bad tournament which is sucks. I think this is a good advice to me, and other people aspiring to become a master.)

NM Alex Wang: The hardest part about achieving my title was patience because at some point in chess you reach stagnation where you don't improve and if you do, it's only for a bit. Having that extra bit of patience to wait it out when you don't improve for a long time is really meaningful because chess takes time.

(Something that is not looked at, but is definitely true. Having a plateau in rating, or trying to improve, but with no rating gain, is one of the most frustrating things in chess. I have experienced this and many other readers can probably relate. Good things require patience, and trying to achieve a big goal without patience is difficult.)

IM Ming Lu: Consistency; training daily in addition to school work or job.

(I've seen a lot of chess players reach a certain level, but once they reach high school they slowly start to plateau or decline in rating. Juggling between school and chess is hard, which is maybe why we see more 12-year-olds becoming masters, compared to 16-year-olds.

FM Ryan Amburgy: Immediately losing 100 rating points after getting it.

(Definitely relatable. One point you're on top of the world, at your peak rating, a few months past, you're not making any progress, and then you drop 100 points. I think this also relates back to Alex's answer, where you need patience. Although you lose 100 points now, you can get the 100 points back if you are patient.)

GM Andrew Tang: I don't know tbh, for me it was just having to do it while in school I guess.

(Similar to Ming's answer, juggling school and chess is difficult, although you did get GM when you were 18 so...)

Question Four

Me: What is a common piece of chess advice that you disagree with and why?

NM Isaac Wang: "A bad plan is better than no plan," because a bad plan can easily be seen at high levels.

(Somewhat makes sense, although having no plan can also be countered by your opponent taking advantage of this, and creating their own plan to win while you are aimlessly moving your pieces.)

NM Alex Wang: "A common piece of chess advice that I disagree with is to memorize chess variations in openings because it's not beneficial if you don't actually understand the purpose of each move."

(100% agree, sometimes right after I've played my 20 moves of memorized theory, I have no idea what to do since I didn't understand why I was playing the moves, but just playing them because I knew that it was theory.)

IM Ming Lu: "I don't know."

(Fair enough.)

FM Ryan Amburgy: "e4 isn’t the best move d4 and Nf3 any day man."

(Well according to chess.com's database, Na3 is actually best by test)

GM Andrew Tang: "To not play blitz... just understand it's not the same as classical."

(True! Although from a very young age, I was told to not play blitz since it would cause a bad habit. Although now that I am more mature, I understand that I have time to deeply think in classical, and blitz is an entirely separate game.) 

Question Five

Me: Do you agree or disagree that chess is 99% tactics and why?

NM Isaac Wang: Chess is not 99% tactics because a lot of games require positional play. 

(True, to be honest it depends at the level, a 900 would have a very different answer to a titled player.)

NM Alex Wang: I disagree that chess is 99% tactics because tactics are only based on if your opponent falls into them so if your opponent doesn't fall into a tactic, then most games don't use them. I would say chess is 15% opening, 10% endgame, and 75% middlegame. 

(Yes it's true that if your opponent doesn't fall into a tactic, then most games don't use them, although many positional ideas and endgames are due to tactics. 

IM Ming Lu: Yes, tactics support positional ideas and are needed to close out a game.

(Slightly makes sense, tactics do support most chess ideas, although some ideas are simply positional. Getting a knight to a better square, or waiting moves, or minority attacks, are solely based on positional understanding, and not tactical understanding.)

FM Ryan Amburgy: Not 99% definitely not but it’s the majority.

(Fair enough, I think it is more 50% then 99%.)

GM Andrew Tang: This is one of the stupidest things said about chess, it might apply to <1600 rated players but at higher levels it's 50% calculation ability 50% understanding.

(True, <1600 players will obviously have more games decided on tactics. Although at the grandmaster level, people don't fall for those tactics. Calculation and understanding are more important as your chess rating progresses.)

Question Six

Me: Do you think anybody reach your title with hard work? Or does it require some kind of natural talent?

NM Isaac Wang: Hard work is very important but you definitely need some talent.

(Makes sense.)

NM Alex Wang: I think anybody can reach NM with hard work but the question is if you have the patience and the motivation to reach it because if you're not willing to work for it, then don't complain that you don't have it.

(Some more important advice for me, and others aspiring to become an NM. You don't need talent, but you need patience and the hardworking mentality.)

IM Ming Lu: NM can be reached by anyone who works hard for it, but many players give up once they're stuck at 2000 or 2100.

(This feels targeted.)

FM Ryan Amburgy: Some of both, but the latter is required 

(Fair enough, so for the readers with zero chess talent, looks like you'll never become an FM.)

GM Andrew Tang: Thinking anyone can make GM is massive copium.

(Well said. I think people look at GM and think they could become a GM if they dedicated their life to the game, although without talent, nobody can reach GM. Becoming a GM requires a lot of work, and in my opinion, even if I had the talent, I don't think I would want to dedicate so many hours a day to become a GM.)

Question Seven

Me: If you could ban one opening from chess what would it be and why?

NM Isaac Wang: The Caro Kann cause it's absolutely terrible lol. I used to play it and it was so hard to equalize.

(So you're banning an opening. Since it's terrible? I guess it's that bad.)

NM Alex Wang: If I could ban one opening from chess it would be the 5. Bg5 Najdorf because it's very straightforward for white and I often have a hard time playing against it as black.

(Alright... taking notes, now I know what to play against Alex next time I face him OTB.)

IM Ming Lu: Grunfeld, super solid and annoying to face.

(Not a d4 player, although I know there is a ton of theory and it's extremely solid. Basically I would ban any opening that is drawish.)

FM Ryan Amburgy: The Berlin dear god. 

(I'm getting flashbacks of all the grandmaster tournaments where they drew in a handful of moves because of the FREAKING BERLIN.)

GM Andrew Tang: The 4 knights scotch absolutely most disgusting opening in terms of difficulty to play for a win against and inability to avoid it.

(It genuinely is, any solid opening is extremely annoying to play against. Going into a game you want to win, and your opponent just pulls out the most solid opening.) 

Conclusion

Hopefully you enjoyed my interviews with all these talented titled players. I tried to make the questions more interesting, rather than the usual interview questions. This was probably one of my wordiest blogs, so hopefully you still enjoyed it. If you disagree or agree with any of these titled players, make sure to leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Once again, huge thanks to @Lightning for giving me the idea to make this blog. Again, thanks to my friend Oscar for forwarding my questions to Andrew, and if you want to talk to some high level players, or players at your level. Then again, make sure to join the Seminar for Patzers discord server. Thanks for reading, and as always, see you next time.