Articles like the Linares 2009 Free Day report by Frederic Friedel remind us that we do more than play chess.

I did an older report on Peter Svidler's love of Cricket ... and now we see that GM Levon Aronian Bowls!!

The thing that bothers me the most is that our 'extracurriculars' all seem to be OTHER GAMES. What's different about us? Why do we insist on being "Gamesmen"? We are competitive even at games we're terrible at. We all have a competitive streak but what ingredient is it that forces us into these tiny worlds of escapist heaven? I'm wondering if it's a step toward mental illness ... or at least understanding a particular undercurrent of inadequacy that forces us to chess. What do you think?

The FIDE Trainer Information and Resource Centre was officialy launched on this past Wednesday.
This of course follows the meeting of the FIDE Trainers' Committee held on November 18th of last year (Dresden Congress). I'm writing this article just to give my readers a wealth of information resources to learn more ... because frankly there's just too many developments to include in a single article but if chess politics is part of your interest you should check this stuff out.
Fide Creation Announcement
FIDE Trainers’ Commission State of Affairs Report and Plans for 2009-2010
Recent Chessdom Reprot

Okay, so I'm becoming addicted to Chesscafe. I was reading "The Instructor" (Dvoretsky's column at Chesscafe) ... or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I was going to read his column when I had to stop at the first diagram. The position is as follows:
Dvoretsky debates the foolishness of 1.Ne4 Bc7? declaring that 1. ...Bb8 was obviously better. This is an extremely deep study and I lost my way from the start (I saw the point clear enough but the execution was lost on the horizon). Now, I may not be Dvoretsky's target audience but I always get frustrated when a concept goes that far over my head. The endgame can be a daunting task but I think we all have to forge ahead. I'm going back to Dvoretsky, Van Perlo, and Silman ... stay tuned.

I was cruising chessblogland and while technically Chesscafe isn't a blog it certainly lends itself well in comparison to a blog (much the same way that Chessbase and Chessdom match the generic description as well). Anyway, I was reading Bruce Pandolfini's column "The Q & A Way" and the most recent question he was asked was as follows:

Question: I’m rated about 2200 ELO. I have what I consider to be modest chess goals. I’m 26 years old and spend a lot of time studying chess. I would like to be an FM with at least a 2300 rating. The problem I have is that I don’t know what to do to move up to that level. I have very good understanding of the positional concepts, as well as good tactical vision and calculating ability. Going over GM games, I generally can see the good moves in a position. What sort of study plan would you recommend for a master that would like to reach even higher? Is there a book or something that you would recommend? Denton Cockburn (USA)

Now, I'm not yet a master but I saw where Bruce was going to take this one. A general overhaul of your entire playing and thinking systems was his first recommendation. He recommended to this reader books on all phases of the game. Frankly, that advice doesn't interest me as the person asking the question has no doubt attempted an overhaul and disliked the result (which may have not been negative but wasn't positive either).

Then Bruce makes what I consider to be a "big-no-no" as a chess teacher. He tells the student to find another player and model himself accordingly. There is no unbiased opinion ... a player will no doubt choose to model himself after a player he likes and respects rather than someone suited to his playing style. I just don't think Bruce's recommendations can actually work the way their supposed to work (maybe in a utopia but this is real life).

Ironically, Bruce follows this advice up with perhaps the greatest advice anyone can give ... starting a chess journal! I highly recommend that strategy as it provides reinforcement of everything that you learn (because you see all your personal revelations at least twice).

I may not always agree with Bruce (or any other chess writer for that matter) but I definitely encourage you to run on over to Chesscafe and check out all the articles!