|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Chessville Plays 20 Questions with Rick Kennedy 1. Who is Rick Kennedy? Please introduce yourself to our readers.
I’ve been playing chess, sometimes somewhat seriously, for about 50 years. Writing has been a good home-based pastime that I have been able to fit in between the excitement of being a spouse, a parent, and a clinician. Email has kept me in touch with dozens of chess-friends (and editors) around the world. Nowadays, I catch the occasional game at the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS). 2. What got you started writing in the first place? It’s still easy to remember my 7th grade English & Social Studies teacher, Miriam Reed, at Dag Hammarskjold Junior High, who taught me how to write. She taught everyone in her classes how to write. After that, everything that I learned was just a footnote. My first published chess piece was “Confessions of a Pawnpusher” in the October/November 1982 issue of Ray Alexis’ CHESS ‘n stuff magazine. It is a clear forerunner of the Perry series of stories.
Most of my work has been focused on chess. In 1988, Riley Sheffield and I wrote a small book on The Marshall Gambit in the French and Sicilian Defenses, published by Dale Brandreth’s imprint, Caissa. A couple of years later I wrote a profile of Russell Chauvenet, the top American Deaf chess player for at least four decades, for Deaf Life magazine. In fact, for fourteen years I was the editor and publisher of the United States Chess Association of the Deaf’s modest monthly newsletter, The Silent Knight. I’ve had articles and stories published in Chess Life and School Mates, and am currently writing a series, “Arabian Knights” for Chess Life for Kids. Years ago I wrote a few reviews for Bob Long’s Chess Gazette, and some humorous pieces for Ray Alexis’ CHESS ‘n’ stuff. Occasionally my words have shown up in Hugh Myers’ Myers Openings Bulletins and the Unorthodox Openings Newsletter. For a couple of years I wrote book reviews for our state chapter’s social work newsletter. When I covered a controversial book on a hot topic, not because I had faith in the author’s presentation but because I thought it would be valuable to be read and discussed by all concerned – the editor decided that there was no longer a need for book reviews. 4. How did you get started writing for Chessville? I had been visiting the Chessville site regularly, and finally decided to offer a few reviews to see if they were of interest to the editor and readership. Happily, they were. Not long afterwards, Perry the PawnPusher (who had started life in the pages of Chess Life), The Kennedy Kids (who debuted in School Mates) and Sherlock Holmes migrated to the pages of Chessville, where I added to their adventures from time to time. 5. Are
The Kennedy Kids
for real? What are they up to these days? Have any of them taken up creative
writing, following in your footsteps, so to speak? The “Kennedy Kids” are real, if currently a good bit older than they appear in my stories. Matt is no longer in junior high school, for example – he’s soon to be 27 and is due to receive his masters degree in physical therapy in May of this year, from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He’s still the quintessential “big brother” however, and gets on with his sister and brother famously whenever they’re together (staying in touch by email and internet otherwise). Matt plays chess when he can hornswaggle someone into a game. Mary, just 23, graduated from Miami University in 2007 with a degree in creative writing, and is at home now, currently patiently transcribing 75 years of a young-to-old woman’s diaries, with a book to come of it. She is a gifted writer with the heart of “Mary Elizabeth” still very much in her and with an abiding interest in fantasy and fiction for the young people’s market. She plays chess on the very odd occasion. Graduate school in Boston awaits her in a few years. Jon, 21, is a junior at the University of Notre Dame, currently studying this semester in Washington DC and holding an internship at the Institute for Policy Studies. He will be spending the summer in Uganda on a Kellogg Foundation grant. Jon loves the excitement of the presidential campaigns and enjoys being in the center of so much political goings-on. Law school just might be in the future, and with a name like Jon Kennedy (he has a story about shaking hands as a kid with President Clinton) politics is always a possibility. Chess? When he plays, he wins. 6. Are the Kennedy Kids stories based on real-life events? The stories come from my imagination, but I like to believe that the interactions among the story family members (and Marty the dog) are pretty fairly represented (including Mom and Dad’s occasional cluelessness). Perhaps we had a little less of the sibling rivalry that the tales present – they were/are great kids. By the way, the “real” Jon isn’t as underhanded as presented in the story “Swindle,” but he actually did have a birthday party that featured a chess tournament that included all his guests. When Matt’s soccer teammates would come over to the house study after school, Jon would beat them handily – something that inspired the dilemma calling for “A Fool Proof Plan.” “Unbeatable Defense” contains a game I played in college, and its notes accurately reflect what was going on in my head. Because of all of the “drama” it’s probably my favorite game. I always like to mention that Matt wrote “For Want of a Pawn, a Kingdom Was Lost.” It was published in School Mates, he picked up a check for his efforts – and then he submitted the magazine in his English class for extra credit. 7. Perry the PawnPusher stories are among my personal favorites. Is there a real-life inspiration for Perry? When will we see any more of Perry's adventures? I see way too much of myself in both the Narrator and Perry. Love for the Royal Game pumps through the Narrator like lifeblood. He is a committed traditionalist, brought along “properly” with the right chess instructor and the right chess club in his past. He is devoted to the “old ways” of classical chess as he sees them, as was his mentor before him. He does not always feel completely at home in his current Club, whose members respect his playing strength, but otherwise give him wide berth. He is, quite often, full of himself. The Narrator has a growing, unsettling suspicion that over the course of the Perry tales, he is edging closer to becoming like the PawnPusher. Perry is the patzer in all of us – or in me, at any rate. All of the glories and excitements of the grandmasters, old and new, appear in Perry’s games, at least as he sees them. He commands the army as the King, he rides the steed as a Knight, he peers over the battlements from the Rooks, and he shuffles ever forward as the Pawns. Chess will be forever exciting for him, and he is not afraid to believe that he, himself, will be the source of Great Ideas (many, if not all, to languish unappreciated). He is, too, quite often full of himself. Perry believes that the Narrator’s mother must have been frightened by readings from the Tarraschs Schachzeitung while carrying him. Perry is currently investigating the “toiletgate” scandal at the past World Championship match, and will soon share his findings. 8. I notice that you only have three stories in the Sherlock Holmes Series. Do you have any plans for more? Why or why not, and if so, when can we expect them? I’ve written five Sherlock Holmes stories, four of which survive. One was sent to a magazine that ceased publishing before the story saw print. In those days photocopying was not routinely available, carbon paper was a pain in the neck, and word processing had not arrived upon my desktop – so, foolishly, I did not retain a copy. However, digging through my files recently I stumbled across “His Last Game,” which will be new to Chessville readers. 9. If Hollywood called you up to write a movie script, which character of your writing would you suggest for the film, and why? Who would you want to play that character in the film? I’d have to go with Perry the Pawnpusher.
Whoa -- does that make me look old, or what?? I’d always thought I’d ask Richard Dreyfus to play me in the movies, but for Perry the PawnPusher I’d love to have Johnny Depp, seriously under-playing the part. I mean, Don Knotts isn’t available, right? 10. What makes you qualified to review chess books? Well, first off, I’m a prole (Editor: slang for proletariat). On the “About Us” page at the Chessville site, it says, quite convincingly:
That’s me. And I embrace the demographic wholeheartedly. I also like to think of myself as being an “experienced and reflective amateur” (again, from “About Us”) with the ability to share my thoughts and opinions in a way that the majority of Chessville readers will appreciate. The feedback that I have gotten from readers, as well as publishers and the authors themselves, has in great part reinforced my belief that I am doing a good job. It’s enjoyable to review the odd, overlooked, small press or self-published book, always looking for the proverbial “diamond in the rough.”
Oh, my. People might want to re-read the review, for starters. IM John Watson is both a talented writer and an extremely hard-working analyst. He has written such masterpieces as Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy and Chess Strategy in Action. He had done groundbreaking work with both the Chigorin (1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6) and French Defenses (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5). His Play the French is in its third edition, for example, and club players know that he stuffs so much into his books that the two earlier editions are still well worth keeping handy. When Dangerous Weapons: the French came out, I wanted to express my excitement, so I composed a light-hearted review that appeared to cut my reaction to the bone: The book is great, don’t waste time, buy it now. Most readers, I believe, got it.
The result was the addition of “A note from the publisher” at the end of the review. And a promise to keep my writings a bit closer to the mainstream. By the way: John Watson's response? "I thought the review was extremely funny, and I'm glad that it was complimentary at the same time!" 12. What is the most difficult book for you to review, of those you have reviewed so far? The most difficult book for me to review – and I’ve read it 2 ½ times already in the attempt – has been Andy Soltis’ How To Choose A Chess Move (Batsford Chess, 2005). Don’t look for the review in the Chessville Reviews Index. It’s not there yet. I like Soltis, and I’ve liked the books he’s written. How to Choose A Chess Move is a fantastic book, with plenty of instructional (and entertainment) value. It’s not hard to read and digest. I’d recommend it to any club player, certainly to any chess club librarian – if I could only wrap my words around it. I’ve been stymied in completing a review to date, and I’m not sure why.
Probably my review of Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!? by Alexei Bezgodov. It involved an offbeat opening line – the Sicilian Wing Gambit – that I was familiar with, always a plus. GM Bezgodov’s book contained much new analysis and many new games; and it appeared throughout that the author was having a lot of fun in his ground-breaking work. I got excited and wanted to give the book the best treatment that I could. So I decided to research, contact a few people, see what I could drum up… It turned into a great adventure! I received a great deal of freely-given assistance in my research, mostly because I just asked. Can I quote from my review?
I can’t do this with every review, but I probably should do it more often. 14. How do you go about writing a review? Tell us about the creative process you go through. It’s best to start off with a book that is of interest to me, either by topic or author. Having a bit of leeway on what to review helps in this regard. My goal in writing is not to do a hatchet job on anyone’s work, but, rather, to identify what is new and interesting in a title, and try to lay out who might – or might not – find it valuable. I like to share my excitement. In almost all cases, I read the book through, twice. I realize that many “serious” reviewers will, instead, skim through, checking out a few interesting chapters here and there, or pause for a while on some eye-catching topics. I’m pleased to count myself among the “amateurs” in this regard, by doing things differently. If the book covers a topic or an opening that I’m familiar with, I’ll line up some references and compare them with the review book. I keep in mind to note how well the author explains things – especially if I’m not on familiar ground (the prospective reader might not be, as well) or if I don’t have a lot of resources to check the book against. In writing, I’ll present an outline of what’s covered, and toss in what I’ve discovered. Finally, I’ll work on a list of who the book is or isn’t for, or what it might have that readers might or might not be seeking. (Or what it lacks.) I try for balance, and when I can’t achieve that, I lay out my prejudices for the reader to be aware of. For example here’s how I finished off my review of Unorthodox Chess by Some Loser, a book that was dismissed out of hand on some chess news groups:
15. Tell us about your chess career, including some highlights, and some lo-lights. How about your thoughts on the eternal question of the worth of book study proportional to playing, i.e. what amount of study to what amount of play? Mostly, I’m a chess writer. I’ve run a few chess clubs at a couple of local elementary schools. A few times I’ve led “chessboard math” groups, designed to help 3rd and 4th grade students improve their problem-solving ability. I haven’t really had much of a chess “career.” Over the years I’ve played in only about a dozen over-the-board tournaments, taking first place in one (for which I received a t-shirt) and earning a few dollars as a Class prize in another. I’ve played correspondence games with friends in the USCAD and others with whom I exchange emails. Occasionally I play chess online. I suppose the “highlight” and “lowlight” of my “career” came both at once when I was thumbing through GM Tony Kosten’s book The Latvian Gambit Lives! (Batsford, 2001) and found a game of mine cited! A Grandmaster! Citing my game!! However, it’s worth reproducing what Kosten wrote: “…and now, instead of the catastrophic 17…Kb8?? 18.Bxa7+, Hailey – Kennedy, email, 1993…” Sic transit gloria. I like to play games until either my head gets too big from success, or the losses pile up and I get discouraged. Then I feed my games to Rybka, and go over them – there are usually many errors to try to understand. What kind of mistakes am I making? What kind of positions am I making them in? Am I wandering blindly through my middle games, or do I actually have a plan? I have been trying to do more game analysis by myself these days, before turning it over to the computer. That’s probably the best way to do it, but often my laziness wins out. Sometimes I take down a book and work on my openings, but that’s almost always a bogus effort. Every time I analyze my games, it turns out that the majority of the times I come out of the opening either “equal” or “better.” Then I fall on my face. I usually work on my endgame after having played one “really well.” It always turns out that I played poorly, but that my opponent played worse. There’s a lesson there, even if I don’t want to listen to it. 16. Please share your best or favorite game with us, preferably with some light annotations. “Best” is a relative term, especially for a player whose last USCF rating was 1664. I suppose my best game is probably Archambault – Kennedy, Columbus, 1984. It appears (with proper cautions) at the end of my review of The Chigorin Defence According to Morozevich. My favorite game has to be the one presented in the “Kennedy Kids” story “Unbeatable Defense”. My most notorious game? In 1991 I played a friendly correspondence game with a Deaf chessfriend, Ed Shipley. It appeared in “The Silent Knight” newsletter. Later it showed up in Tom Purser’s Blackmar Diemer Gambit World magazine. A couple of years later, it popped up in Ken Smith’s book Winning with the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. Not too long ago, I was wandering around the internet, and stopped in at the Chessbase online database. Just for fun, I did a game search for “Kennedy” and there it was – although Chessbase had moved the location to Poland! 17. What stimulated your interest in Unorthodox Chess Openings? Which UCOs do you favor? I ran across The Nimzovich Defense (1973) by Hugh Myers, and later acquired his Exploring the Chess Openings (1978) and a proof copy of his 1968 New Strategy in the Chess Openings. His creative, principled, and unorthodox approach to the openings was clearly “madness – with a method” and I was hooked! I became a lifetime subscriber to the Myers Openings Bulletin. In addition, I have all of the issues of IM Stefan Bücker’s quarterly magazine Kaissiber, which also seriously explores the unorthodox. I have recently completed my collection of issues of Rainer Schlenker’s way-out-there Randspringer magazine. There’s something euphoric about playing an opening in a way that “just can’t be playable” – but is. It says something about the complexity of chess, that while it’s helpful to have rules to follow to guide your play, often there is a whole lot more hidden between the lines. I enjoy playing the Blackmar Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4), and I defend 1.d4 with 1…Nc6 or 1.d4 d5 2.c4 with Chigorin’s 2…Nc6. I answer 1.e4 with either the Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5) or the French Defense, Frere Variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/d2 dxe 4.Nxe4 Qd5), depending on my mood. I try out all sorts of stuff from the MOB or Kaissiber or Randspringer, but usually just for fun. 18. How is the Jerome Gambit treating you these days? Are you still researching it and gathering games? And then there’s the Jerome Gambit…
And yet… And yet… People played and debated the Jerome, and the opening tomes of the time – Gossip’s Theory of the Chess Openings (1879), Cook’s Synopsis of the Chess Openings (3rd Ed, 1882), The American Supplement to Cook’s Synopsis (1884) and Freeborough and Rankin’s Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889) – gave it the respect of coverage, even if they remained skeptical of its worth. Over the last seven years I’ve researched old chess books, magazines and newspaper columns – including several trips to the White Collection in the Cleveland Public Library. I’m always interested in receiving Jerome Gambit games or analysis, either old or new. (I have 570 so far.) I’ve actually written a history of Jerome and his Gambit, and submitted it to Kaissiber. Editor Stefan Bücker still talks of running an article based on the work. What I greatly enjoy is that currently (I update as necessary) the article’s bibliography has 99 entries. That’s a whole lot of research. In an appendix I have the names of 75 people whom I thank for their assistance. That’s a whole lot of help. I’ve played the Jerome in blitz, and am 13-1 so far, which is kind of silly for a gambit that has so many refutations. The opening is “playable” in quick, fun games where it doesn’t matter if you win or lose. It is also possible to give “Jerome Gambit odds” to a weaker player. 19. What does Dr. (Mrs.) Kennedy think about your chess career? She enjoys reading my stories. About me playing chess, she is gently amused, but remains above the fray, claiming she does not know the game. (A WIM title surely awaits her, should her resolve ever falter.) I have taken up the game of bridge to appease her. On more than one occasion, when suffering from insomnia, Libby has awakened me and asked that I tell her about one of my recent chess games. I have barely reached the middle game before I am greeted with sounds of deep sleep. 20. A traditional Chessville question is to ask, “What question does not appear in this list, that you wished had been asked?” Answer your own question. “Why chess?” I enjoy the struggle, against my opponent and ultimately against myself. By nature and training I’m always asking “what is going on here?” I’m never going to “solve” chess and often I fail to “solve” my own games, but the peering into, the noticing, the making connections – it’s what keeps chess alive for me.
That, and the
people. I’ve certainly met a few chessic grouches, grumps and
gargoyles in the last half-century, but if they made up more than 1% of
those of the chess world who have otherwise been almost always friendly,
engaging and stimulating, I’d be surprised.
Index of All Reviews
|
The
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
I’m
a 56 year old social worker, counseling families at Nationwide Children’s
Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. My wife of 31 years, Libby, is a school
psychologist with the city schools. We have three children: Matt,
Mary and Jon.
3.
What other
writing have you done besides your three fiction series here at
Chessville?
I
mean, I shudder to think what Hollywood might want me to do to “update” the
“Kennedy Kids” – Mary as a precocious little tart, replaying that scene from
“The Thomas Crown Affair” – Jon dealing drugs under the chess tables at
Washington Park while hustling games – Matt developing a serious, but
generally misunderstood, “relationship” with his chess teacher…
11.
Tell us
about your review of
A
couple of readers, though, did not. One wrote to the editor suggesting
that it was clear that I was seriously mentally disordered, and that it was
in poor taste therefore to have published my ravings. Another took up
for me in my apparent distress, and scolded the Editor for cold-heartedly
publishing my embarrassing review. I was mortified.
13.
What was the most fun review to write?
