Personal reputations can easily be a factor that influences behavior of oneself and others around oneself. In a previous post I talked about how I was involved in the leadership for the Illini Chess Club and its associated traveling team. One of the factors for how I attained a leadership position in the club was due to my reputation for being a strong chess player. In order to be a leader of a club or organization, one should be knowledgeable on a relatively deep level about the activities that are being organized. With my expertise being known in the club, weaker members of the club are willing to hear my advice on how to improve their game. They are able to reflect on my thoughts and ideas and consider changing their existing habits in a way that will increase their competitiveness against other players. Just hearing about how stronger players approach the game and think about different positions is very beneficial as one will be able to develop a better approach to the game.
Of course, I was not always a strong player. My reputation and skill developed through hard work. In order to become a strong player I had to utilize various chess resources. When I was younger I read many chess books. I solved thousands of chess puzzles and I even watched various chess DVDs. However, just studying and being knowledgeable is not enough to be good at the game. The problem with just studying and not playing is that one will not be able to fully apply the material learned from the chess resources. So of course the most important component of being a strong chess player is being able to play games and being able to apply the knowledge acquired from various resources.
This brings up a critical question: how is chess strength measured? Chess strength is measured through an ELO rating system which is a rating system that tells individuals that a higher rated players are stronger players. Essentially people who are 100 rating points higher than their opponent have an expectancy of scoring the win at 64% while a 200 point gap would indicate an expected likelihood of scoring a win at 76%. The expected likelihood of winning goes up for the higher rated player the greater the rating point gap is. Essentially, Chess has 3 results which are a win, loss or draw. Winners increase their rating depending on their opponents rating and losers will lose the exact corresponding amount. A draw will cause the higher rated player to also lose points and there will be a similar transaction with the lower rated player,but the magnitude will be much smaller as it is not such an unfavorable result.
The US chess federation records the ratings of players in the US and produces a ranking and a percentile, so that people can see how they compare with others. Currently I am ranked about 300th in the entire nation for everyone 21 years and under and rank in the 99th percentile and this lends me credibility and a reputation for being a strong player.
In order to keep my reputation intact and strive to become stronger I play many quick games online to practice and analyze my games with computer programs and databases. Furthermore, when I can I play in tournaments and some of these games are quite intense and can last upwards of 6 hours. It's also important to have a healthy lifestyle in order to continue to have energy in the final hours of the game and this is something that I need to improve upon.
There are occasions where I'd like to stray away from my reputation and behavior and put the game away. Sometimes I question whether it is worth continuing to put in all this time to improve on a game. However, when these occasions arise I try to imagine my life without the game and it seems like it would be a difficult lifestyle change if I just stopped playing since it has affected my life for years. Furthermore, it is hard to let go of something that you become so good at and it keeps sucking you back in. I would say chess is almost like an addiction for me. I do not believe I have ever cashed in on my reputation as it does not really make sense in the context of this reputation.
Of course, I was not always a strong player. My reputation and skill developed through hard work. In order to become a strong player I had to utilize various chess resources. When I was younger I read many chess books. I solved thousands of chess puzzles and I even watched various chess DVDs. However, just studying and being knowledgeable is not enough to be good at the game. The problem with just studying and not playing is that one will not be able to fully apply the material learned from the chess resources. So of course the most important component of being a strong chess player is being able to play games and being able to apply the knowledge acquired from various resources.
This brings up a critical question: how is chess strength measured? Chess strength is measured through an ELO rating system which is a rating system that tells individuals that a higher rated players are stronger players. Essentially people who are 100 rating points higher than their opponent have an expectancy of scoring the win at 64% while a 200 point gap would indicate an expected likelihood of scoring a win at 76%. The expected likelihood of winning goes up for the higher rated player the greater the rating point gap is. Essentially, Chess has 3 results which are a win, loss or draw. Winners increase their rating depending on their opponents rating and losers will lose the exact corresponding amount. A draw will cause the higher rated player to also lose points and there will be a similar transaction with the lower rated player,but the magnitude will be much smaller as it is not such an unfavorable result.
The US chess federation records the ratings of players in the US and produces a ranking and a percentile, so that people can see how they compare with others. Currently I am ranked about 300th in the entire nation for everyone 21 years and under and rank in the 99th percentile and this lends me credibility and a reputation for being a strong player.
In order to keep my reputation intact and strive to become stronger I play many quick games online to practice and analyze my games with computer programs and databases. Furthermore, when I can I play in tournaments and some of these games are quite intense and can last upwards of 6 hours. It's also important to have a healthy lifestyle in order to continue to have energy in the final hours of the game and this is something that I need to improve upon.
There are occasions where I'd like to stray away from my reputation and behavior and put the game away. Sometimes I question whether it is worth continuing to put in all this time to improve on a game. However, when these occasions arise I try to imagine my life without the game and it seems like it would be a difficult lifestyle change if I just stopped playing since it has affected my life for years. Furthermore, it is hard to let go of something that you become so good at and it keeps sucking you back in. I would say chess is almost like an addiction for me. I do not believe I have ever cashed in on my reputation as it does not really make sense in the context of this reputation.
This is a good post, especially since there is an established set of criteria for how to rank a player, so there is some objectivity in the reputation you have. There is a question, however, whether good players are also good teachers. You said in your first paragraph the weaker members of the club are willing to hear your advice. That one claim could have been analyzed further.
ReplyDeleteFor example, you might have said in addition that you offer your advice in an empathetic way. It is a long time since I've played chess, but I recall that when I did so there was some "trash talk" though in a not too derisive manner. I was called a patzer, particularly by one friend who thought he was a better player. If there is this trash talk that accompanies play, would weaker members seek advice from the one who is known to talk trash?
There is a different issue with the teaching. If you are too far ahead of the other players, you may not understand their struggles. You may offer up the best move in the circumstance, rather than something that represents a marginal improvement over the current play, even though the latter may be better for the weaker player at that moment because it is easier to appreciate.
These are some of the issues for whether you have a reputation as a good teacher of chess, which I assume is not quite the same as being a good player.
There is still some trash talk associated with chess, but it is just in the spirit of being competitive. Comments such as being called a patzer are lighthearted and not meant to be offensive.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that a good teacher is not always the same as being a good player. Many strong players are unable to teach weaker players as they are unable to understand their struggles as you have mentioned. However, getting advice from a good teacher, but a bad player is not so productive either. I would say being a good player is a requirement for being a good teacher, but not all good players are good teachers. Whether or not I personally have a reputation as a good teacher of chess I can not really comment on as it would require input from others; however, my argument was claiming that I had a reputation as a strong player,
Have your lessons improved your teammate's abilities, I would think another aspect of reputation would be your advice helps them win more. Do you think you would have the same reputation if there was no ranking system; so it was clear that you were good but unclear how good.
ReplyDeleteIf there was no concrete ranking system, I probably would not have the same reputation as there would really be no evidence that I was good unless I proved that I was by beating everyone at the club or something to that extent.
Delete