|
|||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Dan Heisman SpeaksPart IInterviewed by Kelly Atkins, February 2003 National Master Dan Heisman is truly a Renaissance man. He’s the author of the popular Novice Nook column at ChessCafe - winner of three Chess Journalists Of America awards in 2002, has his own talk show every Monday night on Chess.fm, has authored numerous chess books, is a well respected chess coach, a former investment adviser and software expert, the author of several short stories, and is an exceedingly likeable & nice guy to boot! Over the past year or so, I’ve gotten to know Dan fairly well and become friends with him, but this was the first time I’d had the pleasure of talking to him this in-depth.* * * * * Atkins: First thing, how did you get interested in chess? Heisman: My father taught me when I was 7 - I don't remember if I asked him, but I assume I did. That is different from when I started to play seriously at 16. Atkins: What started you playing seriously at 16? Heisman: My father was a member of the Village Players in Hatboro - a theatrical group. During rehearsals people used to play chess. One day a gentleman came in and beat everyone easily - my father invited him over to play me. That was Bob Shumsky - he was a 1700 player. He beat me easily but said, "You are pretty good for someone who doesn't play in tournaments." I said "What's a tournament?" He said "There is one downtown next weekend" and I went in my suit and tie and that was the start. Atkins: How'd you do?Heisman: I was the only one there in a suit and tie, even in 1966. I won 1, lost 4, and lost 1 by forfeit when I showed up late for a round since I thought each day's rounds were at the same time. I was one of the worst 10 players in a 150-player tournament. I got the low (for that time) rating of 1385. Atkins: Did this result discourage or challenge you? Heisman: Challenge! I thought "I'm pretty smart, but there must be something more to this game than brains!" Now looking back, it was that I was playing "Hope Chess." Smart Hope Chess players get slaughtered by even low Real Chess Players. Atkins: From that point, chart your progress to master, please.Heisman: Well, it depends on which master title you mean! Because of the problems I documented in The Improving Annotator, my first master title was taken away from me, ex post facto. But several things happened back in 1966-67 to aid my improvement. I joined the Germantown Chess Club, and I started hanging around with my high school's arch rival HS chess team, since ours did not have a team. We used to create Saturday 30-30 tournaments for the HS guys, just for fun. Two of the arch rival players played a match and I annotated it. At the Germantown chess club, many of the strong players used to analyze my games and play with me: Rich Pariseau, Don Latzel, and Jerry Kolker. Atkins: Did you understand the game well enough at that time to be a competent annotator? Heisman: Yes, I was competent - I still have the notes in my filing cabinet. I set 3 goals: 1) Become an expert (about as high as anyone could go in those days). 2) Have everyone who plays chess in Philadelphia know who I was, and 3) Have no player who is paired with me feel that he was in for an easy game, no matter who he was. In my first game with a master, 18 months after I started playing, I beat Sergei Goregliad, the top player in Philadelphia! Atkins: What was this about losing your master's title?Heisman: Long story, but in 1973 I won the Philadelphia Invitational Championship. It was held in early July – Afterwards, I calculated my rating at about 2218. But in those days there was no computer calculation and ratings were even slower. In August the USCF voted to change the rating system, but they did so immediately for all games not rated, and my rating came out at 2187. I was absolutely furious and for a while gave up tournament chess. To this day I feel that this kind of ex post facto decision is really unfair. It definitely does nothing to encourage people to play. The 2nd time I beat Sergei, he said to me, “What are you doing in the future?” I said, "Going to CalTech in the fall." He said, "It's a shame you have to go to school and ruin such a promising chess career!" So I went from unrated to 1900 in 2 years during my junior and senior year of high school. Atkins: What were you doing to show this kind of improvement?Heisman: Playing every OTB tournament I could. Annotating my own games. Studying my games with stronger players. Atkins: Studying anything else in particular?Heisman: Reading every chess book I could, including a dozen or more game collections. In those days there were hardly any opening books except MCO-10. Atkins: So much emphasis is placed on studying tactics these days. Were you doing any particular study in this area? Heisman: Just doing tactics from tactics books - like Horowitz’s How To Play The Middlegame or Vukovic's The Art Of Attack. No books like Bain's existed. Later I did Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess when it came out in 1972. Atkins: Dan, you obviously had a certain amount of intelligence & natural talent. How big a factor was this for you and for improving chess players in general? Heisman: It is a factor, but I had a couple other strong factors: "Drive" was one. Also the ability to absorb defeats, learn from them, and vow never to lose the same way again! I never want to make my opponent unhappy - I just want the personal challenge of finding the best move each and every time! Like Bobby Fischer said, "Sure I like to upset my opponent ... How? I make good moves!" In my case I don't like to upset my opponent - I just want to make the good moves. It was great going from a ridiculed beginner to someone everyone respected - and that happened at the 1968 Keystone State Open. Atkins: You were 17 then, right? What happened?Heisman: Just turning 18. It was a 7 round tournament and all the best Philadelphia players were playing: Goregliad, Pariseau, Dubeck, etc. I was rated in the 2nd half, so I was paired "up" in the first round. To Goregliad again, whom I had beaten six months before. He was out for revenge, but I won again. I was paired up in the next 4 rounds too but won them all. So I was the only player 5-0 even though I was in the bottom half of the tournament (about 120 played). So when I came in to play Dubeck in the next to last round (7 rounds) I was in 1st place and everyone stared at me, but I lost that game and drew with Pearson (1900) in the final round to finish tied for 2nd. Atkins: Still, quite impressive for someone who'd been playing less than 2 years!Heisman: Yes, but that was about the end of my regular tournament play - Done after 2 years in 1968! My rating jumped from 1760 to 1930 or so, thanks to Col Edmondson, who I had defeated at the US Amateur, and who had kept my "K" high. Atkins: "K"?Heisman: Yes, the K factor in the rating system determines how fast your rating goes up and down. Col Edmondson was the USCF Exec Director at that time. Atkins: So, you're off to college now. Heisman: Yes, to Pasadena and CalTech - not too much chess there, although I did play in the American Open in 1968. Did terrible. I got sick from the smog and transferred to Penn State. Once I got to State College (main campus), IM Donald Byrne was the coach. We hit it off right away and I was 1st board and captain in my first year there, as a sophomore. Atkins: So many young players go through that initial burst of chess obsession, playing hundreds of games per month when they first get seriously into chess, but seem to burn out, at least for a few years. Did you go through this burnout phase at any time? Heisman: No, I could not play 3 weekends in a row, and by age 21 could not play 3 48/2 games in one day, but hardly anyone can! I am much more the turtle than the hare! Determined - never loses interest. Atkins: What was your relationship with Byrne like?Heisman: Excellent - he was a real gentleman. But he never gave me "lessons". He occasionally looked at everyone's games and showed us his games as well. He did pound into me the importance of the bishop pair! Atkins: Byrne was quite a strong player. What effect did he have on your play?Heisman: Besides the Bishop pair, nothing directly. But there were subtle influences I am sure helped, like learning more about good and bad pieces, etc. My rating did not change much in college - once I became an expert at the 1969 Merrimac Grand Prix it kind of stayed there and I did not play that much. I represented Penn State at tournaments. We were pretty good - 3rd in the East behind NYU and MIT. Atkins: Any thoughts of trying to play professionally?Heisman: As an expert you don't play professionally. I was deciding whether to be a math professor or not. Atkins: Yes, I meant working towards reaching IM level and playing professionally.Heisman: There was just no way - anyone who starts at 16 is so far behind the 8-ball it would never be possible unless I did not want a real job. At 16 I was unrated and Bobby Fischer was 2-time US Champion! Today Nakamura is not yet even 16, so it was quite impossible. Atkins: How about Lasker's opinion that anyone could achieve master level.Heisman: Yes, but that assumes a level of commitment that would mean I could not go to college or make a living! There was no doubt I was going to have a decent career in something, but it was not going to be as a 2100 chess player! Atkins: So, how & when did you go from expert to master? Heisman: There was the most prestigious local tournament - the Philadelphia Invitational Championship. They invited the top 8 players in the city to play each other. When I was in college, Rich Pariseau refused to invite me because he did not want to interfere with my studies. In the late 1960's this event was dominated by Goregliad, Pariseau, Dubeck, Nickel, Lunenfeld, Kolker, etc, but by 1973 the New Lions had started to appear: Mike Pastor, Tim Taylor, Harvey Bradlow, Joe Weber, Boris Baczynskyj, etc. They all played in 1973, and so did I for the first time. Atkins: How did you do?Heisman: I was seeded 6th of 8, I believe, and lost my first round against Expert David Moore, but then I reeled off 5.5/6 to take clear first place and win the most prestigious title! Atkins: Impressive!Heisman: That's when my rating should have exceeded 2200, but the USCF ex post facto'd me back to expert. I was not playing that frequently, but that caused me to stop. Atkins: But you knew then that you were of master strength though, right?Heisman: No, being a master was rare, so I thought I might be close. It was also around then that I started teaching chess classes. And I formed the then outrageous theory that was the basis for Elements of Positional Evaluation! Quadrangle Publications refused to publish it because my theory on doubled pawns was "wrong". Atkins: My first knowledge of you was that book! It had a huge effect on my play. Heisman: "I didn't understand,” said the GM in charge of deciding if it was publishable or not. But today I am vindicated as Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy agrees with my assessment. But I knew I was right all along - it was too easy. That book was written on a typewriter in 1974-75 about the time I got sick and could not work Atkins: Sick?Heisman: The neurons to my limbs were misfiring and the neurological signals were not getting through correctly to the muscles. I think even today they do not have a specific name for it - even less so in those days. So I could hardly stand up sometimes. Closer to some type of depression, but I was not depressed (except over the fact I was sick!). I was ill for two years before they randomly found something to help me. Some medication you are supposed to take 200 mg per day, but I needed 10. 200 put me to sleep. They said 10 should do nothing, but it made me fine, like a miracle drug. I took the medication for several years, but then I was able to stop and never had to take it again. A genetic thing that runs in my family - my mother and sister had it too. Otherwise things would have gone completely differently - I have had many setbacks, like having to leave CalTech for health, but I try to do my best. Atkins: So, at this point, you're mid-twenties, not playing much serious tournament chess because of the rating thing. What next? What got you back into it and on your way to your master title? Heisman: I played a little when I got better in 1976-77 - by then the young guns were strong, led by IM Bruce Rind, IM Rich Costigan, FM Tom Costigan, FM Karl Dehmelt. Without much practice I played in the 1977 Philadelphia Invitational Championship. I was the only player rated under 2200 - in fact, under 2100: Costigans, Rind, Taylor, Baczynskyj, Shahade, Dehmelt. So I was 200 points lower than 7th! But I managed, rusty and low, to come in 6th of 8 – respectable. I think to this day I am the only untitled player from that tournament. Then I did not play again in 1978-79. Atkins: Why?Heisman: Not many goals - not much interest - was buying a house and getting married to Holly Bloom. Finally the USCF system was inflating, and FM Ken Potts said to me, "Dan, you could become a master now without even studying - just play a couple of tournaments!" So I did: I won the Hatboro Open 4-0 beating NM Ross Nickel in the final round and then played in the F-M Experts- Masters tournament and scored a strong 6.5-4.5. That raised my rating from 2060 to 2210 or so! Atkins: Finally!Heisman: Yes, it was official. In 1980, at age 30, seven years after the 1973 debacle that stopped my serious career - not that it ever was so serious. I actually achieved it for a 3rd time in 1990 or so when I played for the final times and dropped to expert for a tournament or two before I regained my form. Atkins: If you'd had the time & desire during your twenties, despite your late entry into serious chess at 16, could you have reached IM? How much of a "leap" is it from NM to IM? Heisman: Some of my equals who kept playing had achieved highs of about 2400. NM to IM is enormous, but if I had hired a GM coach and played rigorously, I think it could have been done. Just as now if I quit teaching and hired a GM coach, even at my age, I should be able to reach FM, but no longer IM due to age! FIDE 2300 is FM and I am FIDE 2285, so I am only 15 points away! Atkins: I want to talk a bit about your move into TD'ing.Heisman: I was always a TD - I ran tournaments in the early 1970's. I even helped the TD certification committee So even in the early 70's I was teaching and TD’ing, not just a player… and an aspiring author with no one to publish my work! Atkins: How did you end up working the Kasparov-Deep Blue matches?Heisman: Since I was in software, I joined the ICCA in 1977. When they announced the Kasparov-Deep Blue match in 1996, I told the ICCA that as the only local member, I volunteered to help. As a master, they assigned my to be the official scorekeeper and send the games to the IBM web site, but my role turned out to be much more than that I was assigned to sit in the press room, and all the reporters soon found out I was the only one who was both a strong chessplayer and could answer their questions about computer chess as well. In that sense only David Levy, Hans Berliner, and Larry Kaufman are both better players and know more about computer chess. So I spent most of the match talking with reporters - I ended up in the NY Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.! I also got a chance to talk with many of the top programmers in the country, as I had at an ICCA tournament in Cape May a few years before which I attended. Of course, my Elements book had finally been published by Chess Enterprises, but even then almost no one outside of Philadelphia knew who I was. At one point Maurice Ashley got caught in a snowstorm and I got to go onstage with Seirawan, but by the time I explained who I was, Maurice had shown up! So it really was not my 15 minutes of fame, but it was great fun! The next year I wrangled an invitation to help IBM explain the 2nd match to their customers in Manhattan. That time I ended up interviewed for Good Morning America! It was also around that time that web chess started to become popular and I found that people had discovered Elements as a "Cult" book. Atkins: So, other than the Kasparov-Deep Blue matches, what else was going on for you at this time? Heisman: Something else dramatic happened: My wife, who had been ill with cancer, died in 1994. By then I was only working part-time for my software firm. I had become a Registered Investment Advisor in Pennsylvania specializing in stock selection, but I quit that too because I had trouble getting insurance for my wife's preexisting condition. After my wife died, I met Shelly in 1995 and had to decide what to do with my life. My success in coaching NM Danny Benjamin and then the Traldi brothers led me to believe I could become a full-time instructor. So in a very bold move in my mid-40's I quit being a software manager and moved to Wynnewood to become a full-time instructor in 1996! Atkins: A lucky man who can work from home doing something he enjoys!Heisman: So I started teaching and writing more books. From my success as an instructor came Everyone's 2nd Chess Book. From my expertise with the computer I devoted 2 years of my life to the Traxler book! I completely changed the theory of that opening. Still one of my most outstanding achievements. Atkins: BTW, the Traxler book is an e-book, right?Heisman: Well, yes, it is available in CD-ROM and download. If it were hardcopy 5.5 x 8.5 with formatting it would be almost 1,000 pages long! I followed that up with 6-8 months on the Fried Liver/Lolli. Thank goodness, not as much theory! Atkins: Back to Kasparov-Deep Blue: how strong was Deep Blue?Heisman: Deep Blue was about 2800 in 1997. Atkins: Any truth at all to Kasparov's assertion that it had GM help during the games?Heisman: Impossible to prove, but almost impossible to believe. Atkins: Why?Heisman: Ken Thompson said Deep Blue always played the move it was analyzing as best. He was assigned to watch the screen. Ken invented Unix! He is one of the most respected computer scientists in the world, so if Ken said Deep Blue did not cheat, that should be enough for Garry. Besides, why would they cheat? It would not make any sense at all. If you read Hsu's book, he would have killed anyone who tried to take anything away from their accomplishment. The dismantling of the machine was purely financial - I predicted when Garry accused them of cheating that it was likely the IBM Board of Directors would pull the plug. Some people are too much into conspiracy theories! IBM management and Board of Directors saw no further financial gain so why pay for it any longer? And why pay Garry when he publicly accused them of cheating, which was absurd. Garry sure knows how to upset the guys with the big bucks sometimes - he did that to Intel, too. Atkins: Just Kasparov's ego making those accusations then?Heisman: No, I am sure he thought it might be true, but IBM also made a mistake in refusing to try to find Be4 a 2nd time. They were correct in saying they could never duplicate the conditions, but that being so... It was still likely Deep Blue would play Be4 most times out of 20, if conditions were very similar, in my opinion. I don't think it was a 1/100,000 fluke, but they were afraid since they did not know the odds and because it was all so silly, and they were right about that. Atkins: Isn't this where the records of Deep Blue's analysis would've answered a lot of questions? Heisman: Those records were provided almost immediately after the match, but didn't you catch what I said about Ken Thompson? He was watching the analysis real time! He said Deep Blue played the moves it was analyzing. No one needed the logs if they believed Ken! He is above reproach - he did not work for IBM. And those logs were made public. But again it gets back to the point: why would IBM cheat and how would they do that? I am not an expert, but if you read Hsu's book he talks about the logs. It is my understanding they were made public right after the match. There is no way IBM would accept a phone call from Karpov saying, "Play Be4!!” Atkins: On computer chess in general, where do you see it going?Heisman: Eventually computers will be too good for humans, of course. But right now it is interesting because the best PC programs and humans are roughly even. Just as it was interesting in 1997 when the best hardware program was about even with humans. Atkins: But don't you get into the law of diminishing returns on processor speed?Heisman: No, not as much as originally believed. There was a terrific article on that in the ICGA Bulletin about 3 years ago. Everyone was surprised how much extra playing strength can still be gotten from an extra ply, even for the next 30 years. Atkins: I mean a computer 1000 times faster than today's best is still only going to be able to see a few extra ply more, and how often does it find a better move at move 19 than it saw at move 17? Heisman: Yes, that is what I mean - they have already measured that with a clever experiment! Atkins: And it's that significant?Heisman: Yes. Neat stuff! So computers will continue to get much stronger as they get faster. For the foreseeable future, each extra ply will be worth roughly 50 points. Right now they do 12-13 ply in 2-3 minutes, max, but they will get 50 points roughly for each ply up to 17-18. Atkins: With it dropping off gradually after that, right?Heisman: No one has measured past that, but the curve was not close to 0, so improvement is still likely after that, dropping off much more gradually than thought previously up to 17-18 ply. Atkins: What about the analysis within the computers' horizons? Is there still much room for improvement there? Heisman: Yes, but evaluation is very slow. So there is a high cost to that. It always seems better to look deeper than smarter with the same amount of computing power/time, up to now. * * * * * Read Part II of our interview with Dan Heisman, where we discuss Dan’s teaching methods and ideas about how to improve, plus much more. Learn
more about
Dan’s chess coaching services, or
|
The Chessville
The
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
