Your questions answered by Natalia Pogonina-7 |
| Written by Natalia Pogonina | ||||||||||||||||
| Saturday, 08 May 2010 | ||||||||||||||||
 It's time for the weekly Q&As! Feel free to send me new ones: Q1: How much do you spend on beauty products each month? A1: I hardly ever wear any make-up, don't have a personal cosmetologist, etc. Don't know the exact sum, but it's not substantial. Polishing openings isn't fun, but polishing nails is even duller.  Q2: What computer do you you use when preparing for serious tournaments? A2: If you are expecting a story about a cluster or a computer lab working day and night to supply me with novelties, you will be disappointed. I'm using just a nice, relatively powerful and slim laptop for my preparation both at tournaments and at home. Q3: If you were asked to choose another profession, what would you choose? A3: I don't know for sure. Would have probably taken advantage of my MA in Law and worked as a lawyer.  Q4: Is there a correlation between IQ and chess strength? Do you know your IQ and can you share this information? A4: Few studies have been conducted in this field. People tend to view chess as an intelligent sport and think that high IQ is a strong requirement for playing chess well. There was even a dead wrong formula along the lines of (max. ELO one can reach)=1000+IQ*10. I don't know my IQ (since such tests are not popular in Russian schools), but don't think that it's extraordinary high. In fact, some people with ordinary IQ play really good chess. On the contrary, my husband qualifies for the Triple Nine Society, but is not playing professionally. To sum it all up, the good news is that you don't have to be an overall genius in order to play chess on a high level. Q5: When did you get a rating for the first time? A5: It's better to get a high initial rating, otherwise you will have a very tough time climbing the ladder. I've seen kids who got their 1500s and improved to 2000 in a year or two, but were still at their 1700s. My first rating was 2136 in year 2000, in 2001 I reached 2265, in 2002 - 2397, etc., and am 2501 now. Q6: Should I solve tactics timed or untimed? A6: In a real game you always have to keep in mind how much time you've got left. Therefore, I suggest timing yourself. If you can't solve a problem after 10-20 minutes, leave it (don't peek into the answers!) and return to it later. Sometimes it's inconvenient to time oneself (e.g. in trips, or when solving tactics blindfoldedly). However, generally it's a good idea. Also note that we're talking about a relatively large amount of time. I am not an advocate of solving a few hundred "2 seconds per move" cheapos per day - that type of "training" is likely to get your chess killed, not improved. Q7: Do you like playing bullet? A7: Bullet is a way of having fun while detoriating one's chess skills. The common arguments against this are that bullet "helps learn to recognize patterns", "try out openings"; "the level of play is still very high". Re patterns - strong GMs know them anyway, and amateurs will hardly spot those within a few secs. Even if they do, it has little instructive value. Trying out openings - you can't afford to spend even 10-15 seconds on thinking about a novelty, coming up with a plan. It's pure reflexes. Yes, some people can create quite impressive games even within 1-min frame. However, they are capable of playing way more stronger within longer time controls. And beauty in bullet is overrated due to a large amount of people who value a simple two-move tactical shot above a long and creative strategic plan (which looks boring to them). Related articles: Your questions answered by Natalia Pogonina-6 Your questions answered by Natalia Pogonina-5 Your questions answered by Natalia Pogonina-4 Your questions answered by Natalia Pogonina-3 Your questions answered by Natalia Pogonina-2 Your questions answered by Natalia Pogonina 
Write Comment |
||||||||||||||||
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 09 May 2010 ) | ||||||||||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|