It's Better Not to be a GM!

That's not my assertion. I continue to expand my chess knowledge, and am years away from what I believe may be the sweet spot for enjoyment, which is perhaps Class C. USCF strength, not internet strength. I'm only wondering if the game becomes less fun at the higher levels, nothing more.

I don't see myself hitting Class B, having started so late in life, but if I do, will it still be as fun? If Class B is the sweet spot for the Club Player, or even as lofty as Class A, then I have a lot of work to do!

Interesting. I had a Skype chat not too long ago with an Expert chess player from Australia. He was enrolled in a class taught by GM Judit Polgar, where she gave each student personal assignments to complete. Here's the kicker. She told her students that the main purpose of the class was to learn how to win a single pawn.

As a beginner, I know next to nothing about chess, but I do remember reading about something similar in one of John Nunn's books. He said that being up a pawn is theoretically winning, but in practical play, winning two pawns is often required.

I know a few basics about king and pawn endgames from Silman's endgame book, but nothing more. What do you think? In practical OTB play, does it usually take more than a one pawn advantage to win a game, at the advanced levels? For me, I need to be up at least a piece, i.e., knight, bishop, rook -  and two pieces makes the win more likely.

That's like saying "It's better to be a 3rd grader! Remember when logarithms and complex numbers didn't exist and we were absorbed in learning our times tables?"

 It's harder to smash people at the GM level because of their high understanding of the game, yes. I don't understand the relevance though. Also, "winning a pawn" is often a huge deal even at sub-expert levels of chess; the whole post makes you look just a bit ignorant. Sorry.

I don't know if it's "less fun" or not, but it's certainly not "better" to be worse. At least, not to me.

1. What did you expect? I'm a beginning chess player, not a sub-expert.

2. Part of the fun in chess is getting better. I have no disagreement with that.

That's interesting, I'm guessing this is something more than a set of tactical puzzles where you win a pawn though :)  So it's not entierly clear what thoes assignments entailed.

There's a lot more to a position than counting material though, so it's not so straightforward to answer your question.  Everything else being equal, a pawn up is enough to (theoretically) win most endgames.  But of course sometimes the winning position is down material (but can force a promotion) or they're up a piece, but it's a draw.

In my own tournament games vs peers if I'm down a pawn for nothing I'm hoping for a draw and they're playing for a win.  If I'm down two pawns for nothing I expect to lose and I think they should expect to win.

Luckily (if you're the one down) though, positions are usually complex enough that there is some sort of compensation, even if it's just a little.

On the flip side, in my only tourney game vs a master, I worked very hard at finding a tactical save that kept material equal (he might have won the exchange).  It worked, however it left me positionally dead and he played a very nice grind and won without any trouble at all.  Showing the game to my friend who is an expert, he very quickly saw that it offered me a lot more to give up the exchange but in return I get activity and dark square control.

So the long and short of it... by going down the exchange maybe I would have only been down the equivalent of 1 pawn.  But by keeping material equal, I might as well have been down a piece.

I think the higher you go, the less "boring" things become, things that seem "boring" to people aren't "boring" at all to people playing at the highest levels.

Hello, Musik - another great thread.

A pawn can be all it takes - if you promote it; or if your opponent has to lose more material stopping you promoting it. If you're winning by a pawn it's more likely you're going to be the one threatening to promote a pawn.

Unless you want to teach I think it's best not to be a GM or even to acquire black belts. 

You make an interesting argument. However I do not believe that GM's derive any less enjoyment from the game because they are 'just' looking to win a pawn (I'm not sure about the accuracy of this statement) or a minor positional advantage (more likely). Thinking about and constructing a plan to convert a little advantage into a win can be just as exciting as superficially impressive tactics.

When your rating is 2500+, chess is going to be your livelihood afterall.

i wonder why they keep playing

if chess devided by layers of understanding (lets not say rating of title) i guess the more we understand the more fun chess is, if not people will stop at certain level..?

Yeah but when you stink at it and constantly make excuses ( >2 yrs, now) as to why you play so poorly (my back pain makes me stupid...please...some of us know much about great pain).

And you duct tape yourself to a chair all summer and do nothing but play tactics on the computer and you still play stinko.

And you are just too old (you are a kid compared to some here who do improve)...

Just give it up, for the love of Morphy! Or...quit yer bitchin'.

Oh the "thrills and spills" of playing romatic 19th century chess.  It's so exciting that we need never learn anything else.

+1

My cousin is a USCF Master, he once played Tigran Petrosian in a simul. Petrosian is known as the great "positional" player. My cousin sacced a piece for 4 pawns and felt he had a great position, Petrosian sacced a a rook and my cousin was crushed in several moves.

There has been a lot of discussion about "winning a pawn."  I have found that against my favorite opponent I pretty much have to make a serious mating threat just to win so much as a pawn!

"It is to Petrosian's advantage that his opponents never know when he is suddenly going to play like Mikhail Tal." - Boris Spassky

But also, I think what you and I think of when we classify positional and tactical players is very different form the reality of GM players.

That sounds like fun chess. Thank you!

P.S. In the "silly game" you posted above.  28)...QxRa1  29)BxQa1  RxBa1, and Black has a very easy endgame win, with an extra rook and knight.

How could you mess up that "easy win" so badly?  I conjecture it wasn't a "Live Chess" game either (as you claim above).  Since it doesn't appear in your archive.

What's up with the OP and his thread.  It all smells "a bit fishy."

I strongly disagree with the OP. Think about it: as you get stronger, you start to convert tiny advantages that are invisible to everyone else.

Isn't that sweet? You understand chess so well that you can see the chances, you can see the ideas even in positions where it looks like there aren't any. Every little part of the game -- space, initiative, pawns, winning endgames, attacks, square control, outposts -- you appreciate on such a deep level. Do you know Aron Nimzowitsch? His wife was the open file.