OK, I started the blog in January, posted a couple intros and a tournament summary, then disappeared. Lame! So, I have some stuff to get through to get up to date!
February's local tournament saw me lose my first standard time control game at ACC. I lost to a guy I had an excellent record against (several wins and one loss {a game I was much better in before I threw it away and then refused a draw and flamed out terribly} in previous games). And what's worse, I was completely winning before the terrible blunder.
I maintain that almost all losses (at club level) indicate some fundamental flaw in a player's game. Missed tactics and flawed calculation are easy to notice. Mis-assessing a positional or endgame concept is also spotted without much difficulty. The really irritating, and potentially most devastating, flaw is the psychological flaw the prevents a player from playing his best all game.
Some players refuse to be drawn into certain position types, and will damage their position to avoid them. Certain players are "unpleasant opponents" because their style or openings or whatever are irritating. Against such opponents, we sometimes enter the game half-defeated!
But the worst psychological weakness in chess is probably thinking the game is over before it truly is. If the game really is over, then why are the clocks not stopped? Why are moves being made? The game is not over until the scoresheets are signed!!
So, in this game, I played the Scotch, gained a promising position, and used a simple and effective attack to ruin my opponent's King protection. Victory firmly in grasp, I actually looked at my scoresheet to see how many moves had been played. I was hoping to end the game in 25 moves to make it a miniature victory!
Of course, the gods of sport are displeased with such blatant egotism. And when I played the "final touch," I did not have to wait long for my opponent's reply, which instantly equalized the game, perhaps even leaving me a bit worse! So, of course I sighed, pouted, sucked it up and played the rest of the game correctly and dejectedly took my half point. Right?
WRONG! No, I was so shocked at what I had allowed, I was completely unable to find the obvious trading combination. I could see nothing. I even tried to take a few minutes to regain my equilibrium, knowing I was in shock. But I still was beyond help, and ended up giving away a Rook for a cheap mating idea, which of course failed. And I lost.
I shook hands, declined my opponent's offer to look at the game, and quickly exited the premises. I was angry and embarrassed and in no mood to look at a chessboard. A bit of time passed, and I was able to objectively analyze the game and my mental state during it. First off, I was indeed winning and the true nail in the coffin was not hard to spot. Secondly, I had to admit that I had simply stopped playing chess. I felt my strong play had earned me a victory, rather than understanding that victory is earned only when the game is over.
In competition, ego is a terrible enemy. Pride and the refusal to be beaten is one thing. But thinking that you "deserve" anything is ridiculous. You fight hard until the end, and if you win, you take your bow. Not before!
15.exd6 e.p. is also strong.
25.Rxd5! is totally winning (25...Ng6 26.Be3; 25...Qxa7 26.Rxe5).
26.Qxe8 Rxe8 27.Ra7 avoids disaster and White can then probably draw.
In round 3 I defeated a much weaker player without trouble, and in round 4 I was able to win in 12 moves:
The loss stayed with me a while. But, a reminder from time to time that the game is not over until it's truly over is a good thing. Twice since then, when in winning positions that required some work to finish off, I wrote "DURSTON" in capital letters at the top of my scoresheet to remind me not to relax. And I won them both.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Comeback Continues (edit)
(Originally posted Monday, January 28, 2008. I added the replayer and the old post didn't like it, so I deleted it and made a fresh post.)
Last night was the final round of the second tournament I have played since deciding to again pursue chess seriously.
The first event was last December, a three rounder at Austin Chess Club. I tied for first with 2/3, but that is a bit deceiving. Against the highest rated player in the event, I got an uninspiring position out of the opening, but was not clearly in trouble, when he messed up and let me win a piece for 2 pawns. I navigated the time pressure and was probably winning, but the ending was not as simple as I would have liked, and as sudden death time pressure was approaching, I forced a draw.
My other two games showed me again playing the opening less than well against a B-player, though in the complications of the middlegame I came out ahead, and then he let me trap a knight. He played on, and I was able to end the game with a sham sacrifice of a rook. And against a 2200 player, I got an excellent opening for once, but drifted in the late middlegame and had to scramble to draw.
So, going into this January tournament, I was not totally confident, as I was feeling some rust still, and I noticed I was getting into time pressure every game, which is not good.
Round 1 saw me paired with a kid rated about 1860. We had played once before, during one of my sporadic visits to the local tournament scene. That game ended in a draw after I got less than nothing versus his French Defense. While the French is nothing to fear, (if it was, 3.exd5(!) would be a simple antidote), I was not in the mood to deal with it, and began 1.Nf3. After 1...Nf6 I suddenly decided to impersonate Kramnik, and played 2.c4 and ended up transposing into a King's Indian Defense, which I have never before played as White in a serious game.
He chose a move that is not as challenging as the most common line, and I was able to gradually force him backwards, while also picking up a pawn here and there.
Round 2 had me playing way down, Black against a kid rated about 1675. I had played him in the December tournament (the rook "sac" game). This time he had White and opened 1.e4. I trotted out the French, and he played 3.e5. I played an odd line and we got an interesting middlegame. I sacked a P to get active play, and soon got it back with interest. Sadly, I overlooked a game ending shot in time pressure, but safely got to move 30 with a large advantage and duly cashed in.
5...Nh6 is an idea I saw in a book by IM Watson.
18...Qxc5! wins immediately.
A remarkable line found by Fritz shows that the N sack possibility on move 40 did not save White either: [40.a5 Bf5+ 41.Kd5 Bxb1 42.b6 axb6 43.a6 d3 44.a7 d2 45.Ba4 b5 46.a8Q (46.Bd1 Kf5 47.Bf3 Be3 48.a8Q d1Q+ 49.Bxd1 Be4+-+) 46...bxa4-+]
Round 3 I played White against a great friend of mine, who happened to have a great record against me. Something like 4 wins and a few draws, with me having zero wins. In all fairness (to my ego), those wins were mostly against me when I was an up and coming player. I was looking for my first win in the series, and also looking to continue gaining rating points.
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c3 d5 4.Nd2 Nd7!? 5.Ngf3 c5!? was the variation of the Modern that occurred. The middlegame started to become interesting when he made an incorrect Queen sortie to the Q-side, costing him time and letting me gain a developmental lead. One inaccurate move by him, followed by a clearly wrong move and my attack was in full gear with his King on e7. After my 19th move he resigned, and I was tied for first with 3/3.
The only game I found with this position had White playing 5.e5. I wanted to keep the game more fluid
Round 4 was a bit of a disappointment. The game was drawn, and I ended up in a 3-way tie for first. That part is OK, but it kind of irked me that my opponent played a very tame system as White, and I was unable to find a way to unbalance the game enough to play for a win without allowing too much counterplay against my King. I will need to recheck the game and see where I could have deviated earlier to unbalance the position.
So, a 2300+ performance rating for the event, a tie for first, and a gain of about 16 rating points. Not bad!
Also, sort of amusingly, I remained undefeated in serious games at the ACC. Before the last two events, my performance rating was not so great, though; I had drawn many games versus much weaker opposition. 5.5/7 in the last 2 tourneys is a pretty decent run.
Super Bowl Sunday is an off night at the Club, then another 4-rounder starts up. I really need to sort out my openings (I am waiting for my Chessbase DVD to arrive in the mail!), and I need to do some more work on tactics, and then I plan to tackle a book or 2 on endings, which I play dreadfully.
Last night was the final round of the second tournament I have played since deciding to again pursue chess seriously.
The first event was last December, a three rounder at Austin Chess Club. I tied for first with 2/3, but that is a bit deceiving. Against the highest rated player in the event, I got an uninspiring position out of the opening, but was not clearly in trouble, when he messed up and let me win a piece for 2 pawns. I navigated the time pressure and was probably winning, but the ending was not as simple as I would have liked, and as sudden death time pressure was approaching, I forced a draw.
My other two games showed me again playing the opening less than well against a B-player, though in the complications of the middlegame I came out ahead, and then he let me trap a knight. He played on, and I was able to end the game with a sham sacrifice of a rook. And against a 2200 player, I got an excellent opening for once, but drifted in the late middlegame and had to scramble to draw.
So, going into this January tournament, I was not totally confident, as I was feeling some rust still, and I noticed I was getting into time pressure every game, which is not good.
Round 1 saw me paired with a kid rated about 1860. We had played once before, during one of my sporadic visits to the local tournament scene. That game ended in a draw after I got less than nothing versus his French Defense. While the French is nothing to fear, (if it was, 3.exd5(!) would be a simple antidote), I was not in the mood to deal with it, and began 1.Nf3. After 1...Nf6 I suddenly decided to impersonate Kramnik, and played 2.c4 and ended up transposing into a King's Indian Defense, which I have never before played as White in a serious game.
He chose a move that is not as challenging as the most common line, and I was able to gradually force him backwards, while also picking up a pawn here and there.
Round 2 had me playing way down, Black against a kid rated about 1675. I had played him in the December tournament (the rook "sac" game). This time he had White and opened 1.e4. I trotted out the French, and he played 3.e5. I played an odd line and we got an interesting middlegame. I sacked a P to get active play, and soon got it back with interest. Sadly, I overlooked a game ending shot in time pressure, but safely got to move 30 with a large advantage and duly cashed in.
5...Nh6 is an idea I saw in a book by IM Watson.
18...Qxc5! wins immediately.
A remarkable line found by Fritz shows that the N sack possibility on move 40 did not save White either: [40.a5 Bf5+ 41.Kd5 Bxb1 42.b6 axb6 43.a6 d3 44.a7 d2 45.Ba4 b5 46.a8Q (46.Bd1 Kf5 47.Bf3 Be3 48.a8Q d1Q+ 49.Bxd1 Be4+-+) 46...bxa4-+]
Round 3 I played White against a great friend of mine, who happened to have a great record against me. Something like 4 wins and a few draws, with me having zero wins. In all fairness (to my ego), those wins were mostly against me when I was an up and coming player. I was looking for my first win in the series, and also looking to continue gaining rating points.
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c3 d5 4.Nd2 Nd7!? 5.Ngf3 c5!? was the variation of the Modern that occurred. The middlegame started to become interesting when he made an incorrect Queen sortie to the Q-side, costing him time and letting me gain a developmental lead. One inaccurate move by him, followed by a clearly wrong move and my attack was in full gear with his King on e7. After my 19th move he resigned, and I was tied for first with 3/3.
The only game I found with this position had White playing 5.e5. I wanted to keep the game more fluid
Round 4 was a bit of a disappointment. The game was drawn, and I ended up in a 3-way tie for first. That part is OK, but it kind of irked me that my opponent played a very tame system as White, and I was unable to find a way to unbalance the game enough to play for a win without allowing too much counterplay against my King. I will need to recheck the game and see where I could have deviated earlier to unbalance the position.
So, a 2300+ performance rating for the event, a tie for first, and a gain of about 16 rating points. Not bad!
Also, sort of amusingly, I remained undefeated in serious games at the ACC. Before the last two events, my performance rating was not so great, though; I had drawn many games versus much weaker opposition. 5.5/7 in the last 2 tourneys is a pretty decent run.
Super Bowl Sunday is an off night at the Club, then another 4-rounder starts up. I really need to sort out my openings (I am waiting for my Chessbase DVD to arrive in the mail!), and I need to do some more work on tactics, and then I plan to tackle a book or 2 on endings, which I play dreadfully.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Brief chess bio
Last post for today!
In the event that someone I do not know stumbles across this page and wonders who I am, here are some particulars:
My USCF rating as of Jan 08 is 2062. My peak rating obtained a few years ago is 2124. I actually have a FIDE rating, but it's only based on 9 games or so, of 2100+. I am 31, and played my first USCF rated game in a junior tournament in 1990. In the early to mid 90s, I was very active playing chess, but was a lazy slob away from the board. It did not take me long to get to class A (October of '92). I did manage to win the Texas Junior Championship at age 17, my last chance to do so. December of '96 saw me finally crack the Expert rating.
A funny thing: though I had beaten some players who at one time had been 2200+, it was not until the year 2000 that I managed to defeat a Master in a long time control game. I had a nice run, defeating 4 Masters in the space of 2 tournaments. That monkey off my back, the next logical goal would have been to obtain a master's rating. But my interest in the game waned, and I played less and less, and saw my rating settle back to the 2050 level.
In the late 90s-recently, I played rarely, perhaps 2-4 tournaments per year. I was more and more frustrated by how rusty I was at every tournament, and finally decided to stop playing unless I was taking the game seriously. Last year I played in a couple events at the Austin Chess Club.
Near the end of '07, I got the bug again. But this time, rather than just playing, I finally cracked the books. It is embarrassing to admit, but from 1990 - 2007, I read cover to cover about 4 chess books: Karpov's Best Games (the first edition by RHM Press), Silman's How To Reassess Your Chess (3rd Ed.), Znosko-Borovsky's How Not To Play Chess and a book on chess psychology by Benko.
Sure, I had a few shelves worth of classic chess books. I had read a chapter of My System, played through a few games out of My 60 Memorable Games, looked at some Rook endgames, etc., but I had never studied the game seriously. "Opening preparation" consisted of trotting out something I had seen in a random GM game that week (that actually worked, though: I used Bronstein's 7.a3 in the Najdorf - Fischer attack and won a game in under 25 moves :-), etc.
So this time around, I realized that to get to 2200, I would need to study the game properly, and devote the time and effort required. So far, so good: I have been playing through several book with attacking play as the theme: Vukovic's Art of Attack in Chess, Tal's Attack With Mikhail Tal, Christiansen's Storming the Barricades, and Timman's On the Attack!!. I played in the last event at ACC in 2007, tying for first and making a 2200+ performance rating.
Why attacking themes? Well, I realized I am a wuss. My strengths in chess, imo, are more on the tactical side. Yet I played in a safety first style, never sacrificing material. As White, I played such aggressive lines as the King's Indian Attack and the Reversed Philidor/Old Indian! Needless to say, any positive results I achieved were not creditable to my opening choices. As Black I did play a bit more sharply, playing the King's Indian Defense sometimes (but again, in a pretty lame interpretation) and the Sicilian Accelerated Dragon (but, as anyone who has played this line knows, it's a pretty wussy Sicilian).
I am not going to necessarily start playing the Benoni or Gruenfeld v. 1.d4 and the Sveshnikov v. 1e4. I don't believe one must play the sharpest lines to achieve active and potentially attacking positions. But one must play ambitiously, and be willing to RISK! And risk was absent in my old games. Only when finding myself in a worse or busted position would I let myself take risks, but when you're lost, it's not really a risk to start taking chances!
I don't think I am a Tal, but I sure as Hell am not a Petrosian! Maybe I am somewhere closer to the Spassky or Keres or Korchnoi points on the continuum, I don't know. But I am determined to find out, and to embrace my true chess identity.
In the event that someone I do not know stumbles across this page and wonders who I am, here are some particulars:
My USCF rating as of Jan 08 is 2062. My peak rating obtained a few years ago is 2124. I actually have a FIDE rating, but it's only based on 9 games or so, of 2100+. I am 31, and played my first USCF rated game in a junior tournament in 1990. In the early to mid 90s, I was very active playing chess, but was a lazy slob away from the board. It did not take me long to get to class A (October of '92). I did manage to win the Texas Junior Championship at age 17, my last chance to do so. December of '96 saw me finally crack the Expert rating.
A funny thing: though I had beaten some players who at one time had been 2200+, it was not until the year 2000 that I managed to defeat a Master in a long time control game. I had a nice run, defeating 4 Masters in the space of 2 tournaments. That monkey off my back, the next logical goal would have been to obtain a master's rating. But my interest in the game waned, and I played less and less, and saw my rating settle back to the 2050 level.
In the late 90s-recently, I played rarely, perhaps 2-4 tournaments per year. I was more and more frustrated by how rusty I was at every tournament, and finally decided to stop playing unless I was taking the game seriously. Last year I played in a couple events at the Austin Chess Club.
Near the end of '07, I got the bug again. But this time, rather than just playing, I finally cracked the books. It is embarrassing to admit, but from 1990 - 2007, I read cover to cover about 4 chess books: Karpov's Best Games (the first edition by RHM Press), Silman's How To Reassess Your Chess (3rd Ed.), Znosko-Borovsky's How Not To Play Chess and a book on chess psychology by Benko.
Sure, I had a few shelves worth of classic chess books. I had read a chapter of My System, played through a few games out of My 60 Memorable Games, looked at some Rook endgames, etc., but I had never studied the game seriously. "Opening preparation" consisted of trotting out something I had seen in a random GM game that week (that actually worked, though: I used Bronstein's 7.a3 in the Najdorf - Fischer attack and won a game in under 25 moves :-), etc.
So this time around, I realized that to get to 2200, I would need to study the game properly, and devote the time and effort required. So far, so good: I have been playing through several book with attacking play as the theme: Vukovic's Art of Attack in Chess, Tal's Attack With Mikhail Tal, Christiansen's Storming the Barricades, and Timman's On the Attack!!. I played in the last event at ACC in 2007, tying for first and making a 2200+ performance rating.
Why attacking themes? Well, I realized I am a wuss. My strengths in chess, imo, are more on the tactical side. Yet I played in a safety first style, never sacrificing material. As White, I played such aggressive lines as the King's Indian Attack and the Reversed Philidor/Old Indian! Needless to say, any positive results I achieved were not creditable to my opening choices. As Black I did play a bit more sharply, playing the King's Indian Defense sometimes (but again, in a pretty lame interpretation) and the Sicilian Accelerated Dragon (but, as anyone who has played this line knows, it's a pretty wussy Sicilian).
I am not going to necessarily start playing the Benoni or Gruenfeld v. 1.d4 and the Sveshnikov v. 1e4. I don't believe one must play the sharpest lines to achieve active and potentially attacking positions. But one must play ambitiously, and be willing to RISK! And risk was absent in my old games. Only when finding myself in a worse or busted position would I let myself take risks, but when you're lost, it's not really a risk to start taking chances!
I don't think I am a Tal, but I sure as Hell am not a Petrosian! Maybe I am somewhere closer to the Spassky or Keres or Korchnoi points on the continuum, I don't know. But I am determined to find out, and to embrace my true chess identity.
What is the point of this blog?
I am not 100% sure. To chronicle my rise to greatness? To have a forum in which I might publish my amazingly brilliant blitz chess wins earned at various chess servers?
I do intend to post some cute games from time to time that I win in sleazy, cheapo-filled style. What else is the point of blitz but to catch your hapless foe with some ridiculous shot from a busted position?!
But mainly, I am planning on this basically being part of my chess diary. I plan on posting my thoughts on things such as chess books I am studying (maybe or maybe not being so formal as to become a "review"), games I have studied that made an impression on me, cute combos and studies I have come across, etc.
And of course my games from serious events. Botvinnik said an excellent training tool is to examine and annotate one's games as if they were to be published. With the modern tools of databases and playing engines, all a chess hacker must do now to "annotate" a game is to click a few buttons in a program or two! Sure, Rybka will "see" much more than I would, but that does not exactly help my chess! So I shall present games here, with my thoughts both on the particular moves played, and how I feel about my progress in general.
I made a brief Google search for "chess blogs" earlier today, and I found a few interesting ones. Some by strong players, some by weak players, some dedicated to news on the chess world, some dedicated to news in one town. I am not concerned with competing, nor even complementing, them, I am just a player who is going to put some of my thoughts and experiences about and in chess on the web. I doubt my hits to this page will ever reach alarge number, and that's cool. This is for me as much as anyone else.
I do intend to post some cute games from time to time that I win in sleazy, cheapo-filled style. What else is the point of blitz but to catch your hapless foe with some ridiculous shot from a busted position?!
But mainly, I am planning on this basically being part of my chess diary. I plan on posting my thoughts on things such as chess books I am studying (maybe or maybe not being so formal as to become a "review"), games I have studied that made an impression on me, cute combos and studies I have come across, etc.
And of course my games from serious events. Botvinnik said an excellent training tool is to examine and annotate one's games as if they were to be published. With the modern tools of databases and playing engines, all a chess hacker must do now to "annotate" a game is to click a few buttons in a program or two! Sure, Rybka will "see" much more than I would, but that does not exactly help my chess! So I shall present games here, with my thoughts both on the particular moves played, and how I feel about my progress in general.
I made a brief Google search for "chess blogs" earlier today, and I found a few interesting ones. Some by strong players, some by weak players, some dedicated to news on the chess world, some dedicated to news in one town. I am not concerned with competing, nor even complementing, them, I am just a player who is going to put some of my thoughts and experiences about and in chess on the web. I doubt my hits to this page will ever reach alarge number, and that's cool. This is for me as much as anyone else.
January 18, 2008: First post
I have been toying with the idea of making a chess-themed blog. I am back playing chess now, trying to improve and gain a master rating.
Today, Bobby Fischer, 11th World Chess Champion, died in Iceland. As an American chessplayer, I am practically required to admire Fischer (his chess, not his politics). Though his style is a difficult one for club players to emulate, his games advanced chess tremendously.
So, might as well start this blog today, on the day of the death of (in my view) the second greatest player of all-time.
Today, Bobby Fischer, 11th World Chess Champion, died in Iceland. As an American chessplayer, I am practically required to admire Fischer (his chess, not his politics). Though his style is a difficult one for club players to emulate, his games advanced chess tremendously.
So, might as well start this blog today, on the day of the death of (in my view) the second greatest player of all-time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)