drunknknite
He was winning,
but he didn't see it
and I escaped - as usual.

-Levon Aronian

Game Day

By drunknknite
First off I must congratulate Daniel Naroditsky, those of us who play in the West have seen this kid around, for earning Gold in the Boys Under 12 World Championship and his FM title. He won on tiebreaks beating the favorite, who is an IM from Ukraine.

This November tournament has probably ruined my rating... I missed the first round because I was in Chicago and I have 1/2 with a performance of around 1450. My loss, incidentally, was my worst loss ever. (I checked with MSA Data) But I did beat Garingo, although it was unsanctioned and only G/40, which I'm pretty sure is Quick Rating anyway (although I guess some tournaments have 2-day options that are G/45 for some rounds, so....). I think we should lengthen the time controls on this match so that it will be rated normally, but I do not think we will be able to play two full length games in one night and it doesn't really matter since I don't really care about the rating as much as winning.

On a comment on Soapstone's Blog I stated that I wanted the club to section the tournament. This is not because I am afraid to lose, it is because I do not enjoy games with players of such disparate strength. When my opponent starts making serious errors in the first 12-15 moves I get bored. I am impressed if they can even last 30 moves to the time control. I would say that in most of these tournaments we get one or two good pairings and two or three bad pairings. Is it really worth it for me as a 1950 player to play opponents with average strength of 1650. This means that I have to achieve a perfect score to achieve a humble 2050 performance. I am lucky in that in games against much weaker players I can usually get away with using less than half an hour so my games don't last more than 2 hours. But for some players they are playing for 4 or 5 hours for nothing, hoping to get paired against a decent player in the later rounds. I also believe that rivalries (which I love) will be formed and there will be more excitement at the club. Also the players who win the lower section can step up and play in the higher section. Maybe we can even make a rule that if they score a point (or two) in the higher section they can continue to play the following month. Anyways, Ernie (soapstone) said that he is considering splitting the field for December. I think that is a good idea...

I brought my computer to work today so that I could work on Chessbase to prepare for Garingo. Our game tonight will most likely be a Maroczy or an Anti-Moscow. The Maroczy is not his style, but he beat me with it the last time we played. The Anti-Moscow is very much his style, but I am more familiar with the themes than he is and I like my chances. I will be happy with a draw (although in the Anti-Moscow I will play to win) and a chance to score another point in game 3.
 

5 comments so far.

  1. likesforests November 29, 2007 at 4:58 PM
    I recently said, "At the 1500-1650 level opponents generally hang onto material but often allow me to obtain a space advantage, half-open file, or a bind on one colour (which I can use to win)."

    From your perspective, what errors are common at the 1600-level? Are they positional or tactical?
  2. drunknknite November 30, 2007 at 12:57 AM
    Wow, that is a really tough question...

    I was trying to figure out how to answer it and I think the best answer is that they don't even really understand what a good position looks like or why it is good. Their pieces are rarely coordinated which causes their threats to be without much of a punch and causes them to lose time rerouting pieces. I'm also not so sure about them holding on to material, although when I was a B player I would have probably said that they do. Basically there is no harmony to their play, but they do see most of the immediate threats going on. They also allow their opponent to get very good positions simply because they don't know any better. I should dig up some games I played when I was that strength and try to figure out what my weaknesses were, then maybe I'll have a better answer.
  3. likesforests November 30, 2007 at 9:37 AM
    Actually, that's helpful.
  4. Robert Pearson November 30, 2007 at 10:59 AM
    From what I saw your opening prep for Garingo went out the window on move 2, eh?

    I look forward to seeing the game, I was busy with mine but came by just in time to see his last move.
  5. drunknknite November 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM
    Yeah pretty much... I think he was trying to prove something. I'll post it after work, I wanted to get some variations in because I saw a lot of really cool stuff during the game.

Something to say?