i need your help for an interview!

Hello guys, i have to make an interview for the school, i chose the topic of chess and the use of software, so I need that you guys respond this questions, if you are a master even better but if not it doesn't matter i just want to know what you guys think about this, thanks!

1. Tell me a little about yourself, your name, your title if you have, your achievements in the chess field, if you work teaching chess, how many years have you been playing, etc.

2. What are your general thoughts about using chess software (engines, programs like Chessbase, chess sites on the internet, youtube videos, etc.)?

3. Do you think that the use of chess software has influenced the level of the players over time, that is, has it made it easier for players to progress?

4. Personally speaking, do you prefer to study and train using chess software or the old-fashioned way with a physical board and books?

5. Do you think that the appearance of chess engines has resulted in a benefit or a detriment to the world of chess?

6. What do you think about the introduction of new game rhythms such as bullet or hyper-bullet thanks to internet chess?

7. What do you think about programs like Chessbase or lichess studios?

8. If you have been able to experience both the pre-software and post-software eras in the world of chess, which one would you prefer?

9. Do you think you learn more by reading a chess book or watching chess videos?

10. Do you think that the existence of engines has made chess players lazier, in the sense that they no longer have to struggle to know which is the best move in a given position?

11. What do you think of the well-known "death by draw" of classical chess caused by theoretical preparation based on the use of software?

12. What do you think that in the 2018 World Chess Championship all the games have ended in a draw due to the theoretical preparation based on the use of software?

13. Adding and subtracting, do you think that the appearance of software in the world of chess is a good or bad thing?

Watch out for "leading questions" in a survey (#10 being a particularly flagrant example).

And what exactly is the point of #12?

@MrPushwood Thanks for the advice, sorry if I made a mistake, I'm just a high school student, I don't know how to do an interview correctly, I just tried to ask questions related to the topic.

@bossans2003

1. I am a 17 year old high school student.
My name is Sparsh Sharma.
Well, I have secured 1 Gold medal, 1 Silver medals and 2 Bronze medals out of 8 OTB tournaments representing my school at zonal level.
I have been playing chess for over 8 years.

2. Chess websites and watching chess videos helps improving in chess. Chess engines are a great tool to analyse a game.

3. Chess softwares have definitely eased in the progression of players over time as they are a source which helps in improving chess skills.

4. I prefer to study and train using chess software rather than the old-fashioned style.

5. On one side, it has helped in improving chess and on another side, it can be used as a means of cheating in playing chess.

6. Fast chess kills our ideas and it is only for pleasure and non-serious chess since its a matter of speed which wasn't there before Internet era.

7. Programs like Chessbase are a material medium of chess as they have chess database that contains games played at top level in annotated form. Also Lichess studies are helpful in having a particular opening well explained.

8. I would prefer pre-Software era to experience how was the chess world before chess softwares came into existence.

9. I think I learnt more from chess books rather than watching chess videos.

10. Yes, presence of chess engines have made players lazy. In fact, I was also initially lazy to not use the brain to find next move.

11. (I currently can't say correctly for this since chess isn't solved game yet and that would take more than hundred years and a very strong technology to solve chess.)
I believe that chess is a forced win for white though it's not proved yet until chess becomes a solved game. So, currently the draws graph will increase until chess is solved.

12. According to the current chess engines strength, the result tends towards a draw. So, probably because of that there would be all draws in the tournament since chess is a draw as of now.

13. The appearance of software in chess world is good as it has led to its popularity and helps in improving chess as well.

@Akbar2thegreat thank you so much! :)

1.My name is Daniele,28yo from Italy,no title(CM title only in my country but i am not fide CM),not many achievements(i have more than 30 chess cups but zero value), i teach chess for free(paid nobody would come), i play from 10 years more or less.
2.Chess software revolutioned chess world. Even a 1440 elo can become a strong master simply by playing vs Stockfish. In past i believed that 3300 elo was the max elo reachable(i still believe it for a human but machines overtook this limit). Chess videos can improve your chess but you must not be passive: by watching them you must try to wonder next move or understand why master made that move instead than yours. Like #5 wrote: Chess engines are a great tool to analyse a game. Totally agree.
3. 100% yes,no doubt.
4.Second method is more fashionable,but being a bit lazy i believe both of them are the ideal.
5.Benefit. I am only sad that games human vs engine are stopped due to superiority of engines(nowadays chess champions do not like be crushed so they prefer do not challenge them).
6. Bullet is fun,it could be helpful to prepare and prove some ideas in the opening or helping a bit you in zeitznot. Then only negative facts apart these ones. Ultrabullet can also be played better from my dog if moves faster(if you understand what i mean). At least 5 mins or 3+2 to have enough time to think and playing a quite good game.
7. They are helpful. I believe lichess studies should be more complex and deeper(99% of them are too superficial,like main chess youtube ideos).
8. I started playing chess when i bought fritz8. I believe players of our days are much stronger than past because of theory is much deeper,we could learn from past players and we have "gods" that suggest us best move in a few seconds. It is like to have for free a super GM. This era(post software) brought a new level in chess world.
9. Slowly but surely,first method is better.
10.Yes for 80% of chess players, but if you do active learning not. So 20% of players are safe.
11. I disagree,ther is no death by draw. Even a totally draw position can be won or lost after 40 or more moves simply by manouvring pieces better or worse than your opponent.
12. Theoretical preparation was a key factor,but often draws are come in middlegames or endgames. For sure last game was a quite easy win for black,i do not understand why MC did not manage to convert it and he also did not try to do that. Honestly playing with white in that match suits better, i tried MC system a few times with black but it is not so easy to play(at least for me). In stead in that match he was very solid.
13. It is a good thing,but i wanna more human vs machine matches.
Good luck for your interview!

@Frensisselvatico thank you so much!! :D

@Frensisselvatico hahahahahahaahahah best player in the world i like to lose versus you

1. I am not going to reveal my name. I don't have a title but I was a Class A player as a teenager and am likely Expert-strength now. I played chess competitively from age 8 to 16 and recently got back into it. As a teenager I once scored second in my age group in a provincial tournament.

2. I personally get a lot of value out training software like Chess Tempo's tactics and endgame trainers. I also really like Lichess' engine analyses. These are all great tools for improving my chess! I do however feel that engines have their limits as you don't necessarily need to play 100% perfectly when playing against a human (for example, the Lichess analysis engine will often scold me for playing the King's Indian Defense even though it's perfectly playable against human opponents). On the other hand, they are very helpful in analysing sharp lines where players need to find only-moves.

3. Yes, absolutely, though it is up to players to make the best use of it.

4. A mix of both. Software for tactics and endgame training, books for learning general ideas and principles.

5. Benefit.

6. They're not my cup of tea as bullet can make you very impatient as a player and thus get worse at classical chess. I may try Fischer Random Chess in the future though.

7. I have not used them, but in general being able to easily access and study others' games and look at opening variation win rates is helpful when learning new openings and considering what variations to use.

8. I was briefly in the pre-software world and even then, a lot of my fellow kids were obsessed with opening theory (to the detriment of their other areas of chess!). I prefer the post-software era.

9. I learn more from books, but ideally I will use both as they are different ways of getting the same information and that can help solidify my understanding. In general I prefer books as it's a lot easier to pause and focus at your own pace.

10. Somewhat. Players are too obsessed with opening theory in my opinion. My openings are terrible but often what happens in my games is I will get a slightly-worse position out of the opening but then proceed to outplay my opponent in the middlegame and beat them over time. Opening theory, while important, is the last area to improve as it is mostly memorization (especially at the higher levels).

11. I think that the current generation of top-level Grandmasters are too scared of losing rating points and will thus always play the same solid openings, making draws more common. In faster time controls they'll often play more offbeat stuff and get decisive results there. Alekhine's Defense is a decent opening for Black but isn't often played in classical chess because of its low draw rate, but you'll sometimes see it in rapid chess because its win rate is close to the Sicilian's!

12. I think that match was pathetic and that the reason why that happened was because Magnus Carlsen knew that Fabiano Caruana is not as good at playing faster time controls, thus he deliberately let it go to tie-break. If the tie-break system did not use speed-chess, we might have seen Magnus Carlsen take more risks. I think speed chess should have its own world championship and that the classical chess world champion should never be decided by speed chess as they are very different games.

13. Good thing.