apology

Mr. Fuerstman,

This letter is in response to the one you sent me back on September
10th(received Tuesday). "National Master Title" Issue I am extending an appology out to you and all other members of the CCC who have the "NM" title in front of their name. It's not an easy task to reach 2200 (something I still have yet to do). For that matter, it is not an easy task to reach 2000, which I did just recently. Of course, I have since fallen right back down almost
instantly into the 1900's again. I will be the first to admit that while I have
hit 2000 for the first time, I don't claim to be an expert (I would hope
that I do have the right to say whatever I want about myself), and won't claim
it until I can reach 2000 and stay there with some form of consistency.
Alas, at the same time, I should have realized that just because that is my
viewpoint of myself, that I should not carry out that viewpoint towards
other people within the club, or the USCF for that matter.

Emotional Outburst
As for the emotional outbursts, as you recall, I made a public appology
concerning that to the club verbally back on September 5th, 2001, and
again mention here in this letter that I am sorry for starting the commotion
in the club. Everybody goes through hard times in their life (life isn't
all chess), and with the strenuous activity combined with the unknowingness
of job stability, I had one of those the past few months...not knowing
until early August, and even the first couple of weeks of being unsure if a
layoff after the merger would take place (referring to First Union and
Wachovia). Obviously now, knowing that Wachovia doesn't have competing
employees for the spot I work (they used outside vendors for my
position), and that the Merger passed through successfully, I am not currently
dealing with the same issues I was June, July, and August. At the same time, I
think I have obviously learned the hard way not to take my problems at
home or at work out on the chess club, and to let the steam out elsewhere.

Attitude Toward Lower Rated Players
This is probably the most complicated, and least-understood issue,
partially because I don't think the lower-rated players and myself are
understanding each other. I would like to start off by saying to any lower-rated player that may have thought I was trying to put them down that I am sorry for any confusion that I may have caused, but never ever was it my intent to put down the lower rated players. I have always been wanting to see lower-rated
players accel. Leland, when I asked you about this issue, you referenced
people coming to me and asking me about the books I have been reading, and
that my responses of not recommending it after asking them their rating was
what was putting some people down. I would like to say again that I never
intended to have any form of negative attitude towards them. I was
merely trying to help them out. I am probably one of very few people that can
claim to have read over 100 book reviews written by GMs. Many of those
reviews mention that the book is best read by a certain class of
people. In some cases, masters won't get much because the book is too basic.
In other cases, players below master or expert strength will just get
confused with the reams of theory that even a player like myself wouldn't be
ready for.

I emphasize that I would like to see all of our Class D players become
Class C players, and all our Class C players become Class B players.
At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect a Class D player to be an
Expert instantly. You can't jump off your feet from the bottom of a mountain
to the top of it. You have to climb to get up there. From D to C, from C
to B, from B to A, and from A to Expert. Many of those book reviews that
I have read, as mentioned above, mention the class of players it was
intended for, and hence I included below just a few examples of books written
for various levels of skill, and that I am by no means making any of this
up.

What you see below are first the URL that I got the source from, and
then the paragraph or 2 that pertains to the Class level that the book is
intended for (Personally, I encourage all players to read the entire
review, but for the sake of this appology letter, I am only including
the part that pertains to backing up what I have said thus far. Many
times, I will look for reviews on a book before I even buy it.)
Comments in parenthesis are my own. The paragraphs not in () are
directly taken from the URL given.

--------------------------------

Attacking with 1.e4 (Best for a B player...would probably tell a C or
A player it's a book they should get if they want to play 1.e4. Wouldn't
recommend it to a 1200 or Under)
http://www.chessopolis.com/br/attacking_with_1.e4.htm

There are no perfect repertoire books, and this is no exception.   Emms
believes that there is value in selecting differing types of lines, with various pawn structures and ways of conducting the play; while this provides variety, it may lead tosituations where a player is not entirely comfortable with the structure. This is a matter of taste, of course, and if a player finds something that is absolutely unplayable to him, there are other places to look for lines against that specific defense. More critical, from my perspective, is a slight lack of explanation of the lines in question. A lot of variations are mostly moves, and there are not as many guideposts of how white is seeking to play as is necessary for some players. On the plus side, each chapter ends
with a list of useful points that can help guide the white player's play.

Because of this, the group that might find this book most useful is the
player who isalready a bit more advanced but hasn't taken the time to invest much effort in a repertoire. That might be a player of about 1600-1800 strength. It might also prove useful to a more advanced player looking for a "second string" white opening or repertoire.

-----------------------------------

Main Line King's Indian and The New Classical King's Indian (These 2
books go together)
http://www.chessopolis.com/br/kindian.htm

In conclusion, if you're over 2200, you have to have these books,
coverage warts and all. If you're not, the price to be paid may be too high.
(It turns out, I did get these books, but as a Class A player, used
them to pick up on concepts more than specific lines of theory. It even
caused me to play a line I seem to have created on my own, and I have seen no source with the 14th move I played, and have yet to get beat with it, including 2 games against Frankie, both drawn, one of which I had a win
that I missed due to time. While I did pick up these books as an A
player, I still wouldn't recommend this book to a D player. You'd be
talking about a 1000 rating points below the group of people these 2 books were intended for.)

------------------------------------

The Scotch Game and The Queen's Gambit with 5.Bf4 (I would not
recommend the first to Class E and below, the second to Class C and below.)
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatson7.html

Finally, who are these books for? Without excluding any potential
audience, there's no doubt that Well's book makes more attempt to appeal to the developing player, and Crouch's will prove tough going for a less experienced audience. Neither is appropriate for the beginner, of course,
but I would expect The Scotch Game to be valuable to anyone over 1400,
and 5.Bf4! for somewhat stronger players, say, 1700 and above. As usual, I'm not confident about these strength estimates; but in any case, it's a pleasure to recommend both of these fine efforts.

-------------------------------------

The Art of Attack (Meant for players 1500 on up...I'd tell a 1400 to
get this, but no less, if someone asked me in the club about this book)
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatson12.html

To conclude, I think that The Art of Attack in Chess would be enjoyable
to players in a range from about 1500 to 2600, and useful for players from about 1500 to 2200. Beneath 1500, my guess is that getting extremely used to solving tactical problems (from one of those '1001 Combinations' sort
of books) would be the appropriate preparation for a later study of
Vukovic.(I will also say, many times I've recommended a different book than the book asked about when a low rated player asked me about a specific
book, just like Watson does in this review.)

---------------------------------------

Conclusion

I would like to conclude once again with an overall general appology
for everything that has gone on, and that all things mentioned above are
understood. At the same time, I would like to get some help from you. If I am seriously trying to help the CCC improve, but "recommending the correct
books", and "not recommending books meant for players as much as 600 points above where they are" is a bad approach...what approach would you take when asked about a book that you know isn't meant for them while at the
same time there is another one on the same topic written more at a
level for them? It seems to me if I recommend the other one for them, they
get the feeling like I'm putting them down, when really I am trying to do nothing except help them out. In addition, if there are any other complaints you have gotten in the past about "putting down lower-rated players" aside from the one on Book Recommendations that you told me on 9/5/01, please let me know. I am serious when I say from my standpoint, I never felt like
I was putting lower-rated players down, and never intended to put them down, while the other 2 issues I take 110% responsibility for and intend to correct those 2 items instantly, but this third issue to me is going to require some
work from both sides. If to you, the solution is not to say anything
to them, and let them figure it out on their own what to do to improve...I will
gladly do that, and respond to all questions by players say, Below B level, that I can't help them. I will do whatever approach you say, but this is why I am asking this, and would hope to get a co-operative response from you, as
opposed to the shouting and screaming that I got on 9/5/01, when this
type of question is what I have been trying to ask the entire time that
I was trounced upon outside. I have never been the type of person known for being the bully of any group, and I never intend to be either.

This about concludes my appeal for the shorter penalty. I am putting
in every effort to solve this problem, and I'm hoping that others will
too. I would like to be back in there on Wednesday nights competing against "National Masters". I think that with a little work from everyone else, and a lot of work from my end, that this could be successfully achieved.

Sincerely,

Patrick McCartney