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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)