Quick Summary
So I have a lot of work ahead of me to get these 6 games published since I'm used to only having to do one a week. But I thought I'd give you guys a quick rundown of how the tournament went.
First of all unfortunately I did not beat a master. I did draw one though, I obtained a winning position and he bailed out and found a perpetual. I scored 3/6, which isn't bad (I wasn't really sure what to expect from this tournament and I'm satisfied with the score), with a 2100+ performance. It was a good outing for me.
As has become typical of 3-day tournaments, I had one REALLY BAD game. Where I just dropped a piece and it wasn't interesting at all. So that was a little disappointing. It is always in the lull before a fight really begins when I think nothing's going on and get careless. I should be able to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I got 4 whites (although one of them was wasted by dropping that bishop). In 2 of the others I won very quickly, gaining a huge advantage in the opening. I'm definitely not switching to 1.d4 anytime soon. And in the third I played horribly out of the opening but then got back into the game and drew (that was against the master).
My other loss came against NM Michael Aigner (fpawn). He's a good player, although I made such a stupid mistake. This was literally my thought process.
If I play Nc8 he will probably just take my knight with his bishop and then I'm left with a very difficult game with a bad bishop against good knight. Then again maybe he won't take it...
...Nc8 Bxc8
FUCK.
Such a rookie error. Just hoping for an implausible outcome.
So there were two wins that were basically effortless, two losses, the draw against the master, and then another draw that was INSANE. In the first round, I was playing a 2145 and I found some very nice moves and the tension builds and builds until we are practically forced to repeat because if either of us tries to win it looks like we will lose. It's a very cool game.
This tournament was a lot more fun than LA for me. I knew a lot more people and of course playing better helped. I had the privilege of meeting chessloser and he is awesome. I only left the venue to eat and sleep, I enjoyed having a lot of players around and all the chess action. Makes me want to study more.
It was a weird feeling playing this section. I had become so used to playing in the middle sections and looking up in awe of the open section and in the game against Aigner I was on board 10 of the entire tournament. It was cool.
The funniest thing about this tournament was the play of Michael Taylor, who is a strong A player. My only loss in the Western States was to him when I dropped a piece in 12 moves and resigned. Like I said, it is typical for me to have one horrible game (see Oops. for my brilliancy in LA). He had 1/3 and was frustrated with how things were going so he says: Next game I'm going to play e3, Ke2, Kf3. So he does. And when I finally look at the position he is just completely winning, although he ended up with a draw. I wasn't that surprised since he always plays lame openings just to outplay opponents in the middlegame but damn. So then he decides to play e6 Ke7 next game with Black. And he WINS! So then in the last game he plays e3 again, and wins again! So he scored 2.5/3 with e3 Ke2 (e6 Ke7) in the A section. This is a great anecdote that proves how absurd it is to base your result on how the opening of the game goes. He let his opponent have several moves, didn't castle, didn't develop pieces, and still had a good game.
I might end up taking a break from chess study because I want to take the GMAT but hopefully I don't have to study that much for it, it seems like it's going to be easy. I have to get it out of the way before I apply for JD/MBA programs during the fall.
First of all unfortunately I did not beat a master. I did draw one though, I obtained a winning position and he bailed out and found a perpetual. I scored 3/6, which isn't bad (I wasn't really sure what to expect from this tournament and I'm satisfied with the score), with a 2100+ performance. It was a good outing for me.
As has become typical of 3-day tournaments, I had one REALLY BAD game. Where I just dropped a piece and it wasn't interesting at all. So that was a little disappointing. It is always in the lull before a fight really begins when I think nothing's going on and get careless. I should be able to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I got 4 whites (although one of them was wasted by dropping that bishop). In 2 of the others I won very quickly, gaining a huge advantage in the opening. I'm definitely not switching to 1.d4 anytime soon. And in the third I played horribly out of the opening but then got back into the game and drew (that was against the master).
My other loss came against NM Michael Aigner (fpawn). He's a good player, although I made such a stupid mistake. This was literally my thought process.
If I play Nc8 he will probably just take my knight with his bishop and then I'm left with a very difficult game with a bad bishop against good knight. Then again maybe he won't take it...
...Nc8 Bxc8
FUCK.
Such a rookie error. Just hoping for an implausible outcome.
So there were two wins that were basically effortless, two losses, the draw against the master, and then another draw that was INSANE. In the first round, I was playing a 2145 and I found some very nice moves and the tension builds and builds until we are practically forced to repeat because if either of us tries to win it looks like we will lose. It's a very cool game.
This tournament was a lot more fun than LA for me. I knew a lot more people and of course playing better helped. I had the privilege of meeting chessloser and he is awesome. I only left the venue to eat and sleep, I enjoyed having a lot of players around and all the chess action. Makes me want to study more.
It was a weird feeling playing this section. I had become so used to playing in the middle sections and looking up in awe of the open section and in the game against Aigner I was on board 10 of the entire tournament. It was cool.
The funniest thing about this tournament was the play of Michael Taylor, who is a strong A player. My only loss in the Western States was to him when I dropped a piece in 12 moves and resigned. Like I said, it is typical for me to have one horrible game (see Oops. for my brilliancy in LA). He had 1/3 and was frustrated with how things were going so he says: Next game I'm going to play e3, Ke2, Kf3. So he does. And when I finally look at the position he is just completely winning, although he ended up with a draw. I wasn't that surprised since he always plays lame openings just to outplay opponents in the middlegame but damn. So then he decides to play e6 Ke7 next game with Black. And he WINS! So then in the last game he plays e3 again, and wins again! So he scored 2.5/3 with e3 Ke2 (e6 Ke7) in the A section. This is a great anecdote that proves how absurd it is to base your result on how the opening of the game goes. He let his opponent have several moves, didn't castle, didn't develop pieces, and still had a good game.
I might end up taking a break from chess study because I want to take the GMAT but hopefully I don't have to study that much for it, it seems like it's going to be easy. I have to get it out of the way before I apply for JD/MBA programs during the fall.
Good luck with GMAT, I have to take the GRE.
chessaholic - In the sixth round he was playing this kid and I walked over to check it out fully aware of how the opening went and the kid looks at me and points at his scoresheet as if to mock him. I think he got a psychological edge by playing such provocative moves.
How does one lose to George on time? I'm happy whenever I play George because I get to play Opening, Middlegame and Endgame and he only gets to play Opening and Middlegame. By the time the later stages come around, he himself is about to lose on time. If he makes it, he only has an hour for probably what is the best part of the game!