Chess species classified!

5/4/2017 – ChessBase's youngest author 12-year-old Avathanshu Bhat has a quirky habit - he observes people closely. Being a chess player he meets at least ten new opponents in each tournament that he plays. Based on his examination, the boy has segregated chess players into seven different groups. Check out this hilarious article and see if you can place yourself in one of those categories.

ChessBase 14 Download ChessBase 14 Download

Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. Start your personal success story with ChessBase 14 and enjoy your chess even more!


Along with the ChessBase 14 program you can access the Live Database of 8 million games, and receive three months of free ChesssBase Account Premium membership and all of our online apps! Have a look today!

More...

Chess Species Classified

by Avathanshu Bhat

Disclaimer: This article is based on real-life incidents and should not be taken offensively. This is taken from observations over time and NOT on any specific individual or on his/her traits. Your discretion is advised. 

Chess is always fun! I’m sure you will agree with me on this. Apart from winning, losing, emotions and atmosphere there is something else that spices up the game. I have an unusual habit of observing players that come by. Trust me, I am not being judgmental or sarcastic, but this is just part of me which I am born with. My mother often complains that I get distracted by this, but I can’t help but watch people and ‘admire’.

In all these years of playing the game, I have classified the players into these types. Again, no fingers pointed at anyone.

1. Mr. Take Your Time

These people appear just five minutes before the walkover time when you’re drooling for that free point. They will slowly sit down, put the bag aside with no rush, put the coffee aside carefully, comb their hair neatly, fish their pen out, fill their scoresheet without any hurry, adjust the pieces on their fingertips as if they are meant to be kept as decoration, take an enormous breath, shake hands and finally, painfully play ‘e5’ and feather-touch the clock. Phew!!

2. Mr. Why So Serious

They appear serious as if they had a bad morning, they never smile and they give a very cold and lifeless handshake. They don’t eat anything themselves and dislike their opponents eating as well. Any sound from another board and they will sulk while looking at that board with a pointed look. They dislike their opponents shaking their legs or pressing the clock hard. Win or loss, their expression is always the same story.

3. Ms. Perfectionist

Why ‘Ms’ is because it is more often girls than boys. They are pretty punctual, they carry a lot of stationary, as big as the cabin luggage all neatly kept on the table. They have impeccable handwriting and their movements are graceful, be it eating or drinking. They appear calm and do not show their emotions as easily.

4. Mr. Made For Eating

They generally carry a kitchen with them. They will munch and chew and repeat. Better are those polite ones who offer you their food. As if that weren’t enough, after the game is you can see them over chomping on more food! Unmoved by the result, they continue chewing.

5. Mr. Midget

Better not to underestimate or mess with these guys. They are barely higher than the table yet they have an air of menace around them. They appear disinterested and clumsy, often accompanied by a runny nose, scattered footwear under the table, pen marks all over them and a half-eaten pen. Never try to fix their ways; they know the rules very well. Beware!

6. Mr. Pins Under The Seat

These are the guys that rarely sit. The moment you write down your move and look up they are on the other side of the hall, spectating on other games. Their frequent standing sometimes gives the impression of winning. They seem to find the washroom so interesting that they go every alternate move. When they sit, they change their posture every ten seconds from Spiderman to Superman to Batman.

7. The Baby Bones

I say ‘Baby Bones’ but it is nothing to do with age. When it isn’t in their favour, they panic, they shake their legs vigorously, they start asking for draws, their eyes become red and they sniffle. When it is over, they become inconsolable. Nevertheless, they are fine ten minutes after leaving the hall.

Well, isn’t it fun? I am sure, you too might have come across these different types of chess species as well and maybe many more. Honestly, I never had any problems with my opponents so far. None of them have tarnished the image of this game as far as I know. Chess has always been a royal game and has earned its respect as a gentleman’s sport. After all, what is a game without this diversity!

About the author:

Avathanshu Bhat is a 12-year-old chess player from Mumbai, India. Apart from being a chess fanatic, he is a voracious reader and his favourite books include Wonder by R.J. Palacio, Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien and the complete adventures of Feluda by Satyajit Ray. He loves Daniel King and enjoys his Power Play DVDs very much. He maintains his own blog.

Read more articles by Avathanshu Bhat on ChessBase India:

Life of a young chess player

Joy of losing

G. Akash wins the Grand Hyderabad affair

10-year-old boy's deep calculation (16,000+ hits on Youtube)

12-year-old chessentrepreneur Avathanshu Bhat

Like Avathanshu's newly created Facebook page:


Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/11/2017 08:26
@ drcloak : I just remind you that it is up to you to prove what you affirmed, and not to anyone else to prove that what you affirmed is false. Prove your own point, and we will then resume this discussion.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/11/2017 08:12
@ drcloak : "Nothing new under the sun" with your last post, so I haven't anything to add on the original subject ; anyone can simply refer to our previous posts. And I think that the conclusions that can be drawn from the reading of these posts would be rather obvious for nearly anyone (except, obviously, for you...).

And to call you a troll isn't an ad hominem attack ; you simply correspond exactly to the definition of a troll as given by the Oxford Dictionary. It is an objective observation, nothing more... When I see a man, I call him a man, when I see a dog, I call it a dog, and when I see a troll, I call him a troll ; it's as simple as that.
drcloak drcloak 5/11/2017 07:53
Are you guys finished holding hands and kissing? Because what I originally said still stands, you haven't proved anything I said was false. In case you forgot, the statement is this kid did not write the entire article, since it has been injected with political correctness and other BS. Also, you are guilty just like me, of ad hominen attacks through calling me a troll etc. This is hypocritical and makes it difficult to take you seriously. Get a clue.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/10/2017 06:28
@ ChessPizzas : Two little things :

1) "(...) I don't mind answering posts that seem provocative, because a provocative argument is not necessarily false or dishonest." Personally, even if an argument is obviously false or dishonest, I still answer, not for the author of the post, but not to let him give his views unopposed.

2) "Of course, if you insist on keep trying to argue with him, I am not going to stop you. But a prudent call would be to refrain from that impulse. It is your decision in the end." In these (potentially "endless") debates, the question is always : "When to stop ?". Personally, I always tend to stop rather late... But I don't see many drawbacks to this (beside, I must admit, a certain amount of lost time...).
ChessPizzas ChessPizzas 5/10/2017 05:18
@Petrarlsen

I understand your position. That is why I responded to him in the first place. What he said was a bold claim and there was a need to refute his argument, and show that it was false. And so I did. His argument was refuted simply by presenting evidence that contradicted his unsupported claims.

"So, to follow your reasoning, we shouldn't AT ALL have answered drcloak, and not only since his last post, because, from the beginning, it is clear that he is a troll."

On the contrary, when I entered the discussion, I did not consider drcloak a troll. I don't mind answering posts that seem provocative, because a provocative argument is not necessarily false or dishonest. However, when he resorted to insults instead of arguments, it was absolutely clear that there is no need to continue.

"...the consequence will be that this person can affirm anything without ever being contradicted."
But he was contradicted with clarity. No need to worry about a settled issue. He was refuted, period. Of course, if you insist on keep trying to argue with him, I am not going to stop you. But a prudent call would be to refrain from that impulse. It is your decision in the end.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/10/2017 04:29
@ ChessPizzas : Personally, this is not my way of reacting to trolls.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a troll is "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.".

If you follow this definition, drcloak is clearly a troll from the beginning ; I remind you his first post on this page : "Highly doubt this kid wrote the article. "After all, what is a game without this diversity!" is what gives it away. Nice try guys, but a 12 year old doesn't have any concept of PC nonsense that is being pushed so much these days by the establishment. Get a grip..." If this isn't a "deliberately provocative online post", I really wonder what could be one !...

So, to follow your reasoning, we shouldn't AT ALL have answered drcloak, and not only since his last post, because, from the beginning, it is clear that he is a troll.

As for me, I don't find such a solution satisfying.

This is the line that I prefer to follow : If you don't answer when a person act as a troll, infringes the "Rules for reader comments", etc., the consequence will be that this person can affirm anything without ever being contradicted. And as I don't find this situation satisfying, even in these cases, when I am in strong disagreement with a commentator, I answer to his posts.
ChessPizzas ChessPizzas 5/10/2017 04:17
@Petrarlsen: Don't say I didn't warn you. I'm out of here.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/10/2017 03:54
@ drcloak : "I simply stated my opinion. If you want to perceive it as an argument, then that is your right; but it doesn't make it so." You are making a muddle of all this : your first post stated an (unproved, and this is the problem) opinion, and thus, you started an argument.
ChessPizzas ChessPizzas 5/9/2017 06:55
@Petrarlsen: There was no need to answer drcloak at all. He just have demonstrated that he is a troll and his last response to me shows that. He ran out of arguments, so the only thing he could do was an "ad hominem" against me. That was a bad move on his part. He became careless and as a consequence his comment is not in compliance with the Rules for Reader Comments.

Just remember: don´t feed the trolls.

drcloak said : "...in your case it means you're pretty stupid"; "I simply stated my opinion. If you want to perceive it as an argument, then that is your right; but it doesn't make it so."

An adhominem is neither an argument nor an opinion. It is just an insult.

It is actually better to ignore him, otherwise, you'll just get dragged into his silliness.
drcloak drcloak 5/9/2017 05:42
@Petrarlsen I simply stated my opinion. If you want to perceive it as an argument, then that is your right; but it doesn't make it so.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/9/2017 02:40
@ drcloak : To say : "Arguing with strangers on the internet reflects poor intelligence and judgment (...)" when you began yourself the argument by asserting a completely unproven statement is really beyond absurd...
drcloak drcloak 5/9/2017 07:28
@ChessPizzas Thank you for providing me with such great entertainment and laughter. I'm not trying to win any argument with you. In fact, you're the one typing out these long essays and getting emotional. Arguing with strangers on the internet reflects poor intelligence and judgment; in your case it means you're pretty stupid.
ChessPizzas ChessPizzas 5/8/2017 11:36
@drcloak

Oh wow! So I present you evidence where kids actually discuss about diversity, and what you do? Since you cannot disprove that the kids were actually talking about the topic, then you go and question the motivation! Nice try!

It is also interesting to note how you only addressed one of the videos while conveniently ignoring the other one. There were more that I can get for you but I don't think it is necessary.

"These ideas originated from adults first; again proving my point of an agenda
being pushed. Get a grip."

That is a "non sequitur" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic))
Fallacious reasoning is not taking you poor argument anywhere.

You proved something? Where? Proof demands evidence, which you have not provided. Kids speaking about a certain topic (not necessarily diversity) is not evidence of the existence of any agenda whatsoever.

You seem to be happy to recur to fallacious reasoning, trying to win the argument for the sake of winning the argument. Better for you to admit the flaw in your reasoning than trying to win by force through dishonest means.

Oh and by the way, if you truly want to laugh hard, try reading your own posts. ;-)
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/8/2017 10:12
@ drcloak : When you will prove your point, I will continue this discussion ; in the meantime, I consider that all you affirmed is equal to inexistant. It's as simple as that : something that isn't proved hasn't any value whatsoever. What would you want me to think ? "drcloak said it, so it is necessarily true" ? This is just ridiculous...
drcloak drcloak 5/8/2017 06:40
@Petrarlsen According to your logic, you must believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny since you saw them advertised in various forms of media, and their existence has never been dis-proven. You believe everything you read and see; which is unfortunate. It shows you lack the ability to think critically and see beyond the illusions that were programmed for you since a young age.
drcloak drcloak 5/8/2017 06:37
@ChessPizzas Don't make me laugh so hard. These kids in the video were instructed to talk about it as part of a project; they were told what to draw and given the topic to discuss. These ideas originated from adults first; again proving my point of an agenda being pushed. Get a grip.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/8/2017 09:03
@ drcloak : I'm not even saying that Avathanshu Bhat wrote this article ; but to affirm that he didn't write it without any single proof simply has no value at all. He's presumed to have written it until the opposite is proven, that's all.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/8/2017 08:54
@ drcloak : "12 year olds don't go around talking about how great the diversity is" - It's always the same thing : you assert, and you don't demonstrate. If you affirm something, you must demonstrate it ; it's as simple as that... Otherwise, it has no value at all.
ChessPizzas ChessPizzas 5/8/2017 04:43
drcloak said:
"Sorry, but 12 year olds don't go around talking about how great the diversity is. He may have wrote some of the article, but not all of it."

Oh, really?! Why, because you say so?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGUS77l-DpM

Or what about this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovP5brL-spo

This last one is called "Defining Diversity". It is a dance group formed by young kids. Can you guess their ages at the time it was recorded?

Seriously, get from under that rock.
drcloak drcloak 5/8/2017 03:52
@Petrarlsen He probably wrote the bulk of the article, but not the political parts - that was "ghost written" for him. You seem to be the same type of person that believes Prime Ministers and Presidents write and rehearse their own speeches and that these speeches came from their own mind.
drcloak drcloak 5/8/2017 03:50
@ChessPizzas Sorry, but 12 year olds don't go around talking about how great the diversity is. He may have wrote some of the article, but not all of it.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/8/2017 02:01
@ drcloak : Avathanshu Bhat is not an IM and he's not Praggnanandhaa, but you quite obviously don't know him personally, so you can't have any objective argument to affirm that he his necessarily less gifted than Praggnanandhaa in his own right.

So the "fantasy" is on your behalf : you WANT to think that A. Bhat can't be sufficiently gifted (or precocious) to write this article... and, without any real reasoning, you affirm it forcefully.

But, in fact, this is only a completely unproved opinion, and nothing more...

"(...) have you ever had a young child come up to you and talk to you about how great diversity is?" And have you ever seen a child IM at 10 (Praggnanandhaa) or GM at 12 (Karjakin) ? The world is quite a bit larger that what you will see in your whole life, dear drcloak...
ChessPizzas ChessPizzas 5/8/2017 12:14
When you see someone react to the word "diversity" with the thought of "establishment", that shows a very narrow mind.
drcloak drcloak 5/7/2017 07:47
@Petrarlsen My problem with your logic is that this specific 12 year old is not an IM, and his name is not Praggnanandhaa. Regardless, have you ever had a young child come up to you and talk to you about how great diversity is? Give me a break, you clearly live in a world that is created by some type of fantasy.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 5/6/2017 09:05
@ drcloak : If I understand well, following you, it is possible to be an IM at 10 (Praggnanandhaa), and not to write this article at 12...
If, for you, this is elementary logic, clearly, what is obvious for you will not be obvious for everyone...
drcloak drcloak 5/6/2017 07:05
Highly doubt this kid wrote the article. "After all, what is a game without this diversity!" is what gives it away. Nice try guys, but a 12 year old doesn't have any concept of PC nonsense that is being pushed so much these days by the establishment. Get a grip...
akira sowmyanath akira sowmyanath 5/6/2017 04:19
any way very funny
akira sowmyanath akira sowmyanath 5/6/2017 03:43
i my self have some reflections in 5,6,7.Good observation.
Clarity Clarity 5/6/2017 08:28
@iceKirby, 4 is mostly seen in India,where some kids do lunch and dinner while playing the game,
5 is also seen a lot in India , where the kids keep on looking here and there, making sure there
parents are not near, in case they are having a minus position .
benedictralph benedictralph 5/6/2017 02:06
Cute kid.
IceKirby IceKirby 5/5/2017 09:57
Haha, I can relate to all of these except 4 and 5.
RayLopez RayLopez 5/5/2017 01:22
Funny! But the photos only show one species: Felix the cat ("Felis catus")
1