drunknknite

Back in Action

2011-07-11T09:41:00.000-07:00

I'm going to start updating my blog again. I have a lot of games to review. Also, sorry that all the links don't work anymore, I need to find somewhere to host my files and I will have all my old games back online. If anyone knows a good place to do this let me know. Hi again everybody.

Good News and Bad News

2009-06-12T18:02:00.000-07:00

Over the last few months I decided I would pursue an MBA in the fall. The good news, I got into the school I want: University of Toronto. The bad news: I have to move before the club championship will be over. Last night my friend came into town and I decided to just concede my match because I will not be able to play in the finals and I wanted to hang out with my friend. I know, very anti-climactic.

Overtime.

2009-06-08T14:46:00.000-07:00

I am not really happy with my game from Thursday although it is very very interesting. Basically I closed the position up completely leaving my opponent with one file with which to penetrate which was not enough for him to find an advantage. After 30 moves of trying to get in while I just moved my king back and forth (some other pieces too but in reality I was doing nothing for the last 30 moves of the game). My opponent gave up and agreed to a draw. I set up a fortress and waited for him to give up.

At some point during the day I decided that I would rather try to win with White and take all the pressure off. I'm not sure that this was the best choice and I really wish the match was over already but I lived to fight another day. After butchering the opening I was in no position to make a real fight for the advantage so I just drew and moved on.

Also charging king is back with a new blog just wanted to let everybody know, check it out!

For LEP

2009-06-04T11:19:00.000-07:00

Since LEP asked so nicely, here is the game.

The original pawn sacrifice 13.f4 may be a little worse for White but I wanted to give the position the rather distinct character that I have been achieving good results in lately. After 22...Qxd2 Black forfeits all chances of winning and for the rest of the game I am never worse, there are times Black is able to put up more resistance but in essence I am risking absolutely nothing and playing to win on a mistake from Black. The beauty of the queen trade is that Black is forcing the pawn up endgame he achieves after the exchange of rooks on c3 and this seems to make him an overwhelming favorite, so it is difficult to resist. But once he accomplishes this position he realizes that the ball is really in my court. This was an ideal position for me to be in considering if I lost I would be eliminated. Tonight is the same, if I lose it is over. But... if I win it is over too...

Still Kickin'

2009-05-29T02:02:00.000-07:00

Last night I played a little wild. I ditched the d4 experiment for the time being and went with my beloved e4. I scored the point. I found a pawn down ending that I thought offered me good winning chances. I'm very happy about the result, although to be honest, I all but guaranteed it to several people and all day I knew I would win the game. My friend asked me earlier in the day if I knew how it felt to just know you would get an A on a test, I said that's how I felt about my game. I made pretty good decisions, I took some unnecessary risks, but if there is one thing that I have learned from this match it is that Case does not want to enter a tactical battle. He tries to keep the game very calm. So I livened things up a bit to see how he would react. It was a very interesting game. I had to win though, I hadn't won in three weeks, I was getting anxious about it.... 1.5-1.5 with one game to go, I'm black but I don't think that's going to stop me from playing for the win.

PS Chess? thanks for the support. Also who ever else is out there, thanks.

Still Behind.

2009-05-26T13:57:00.000-07:00

On Thursday I did not get any real chance for advantage and got frustrated and blundered away the draw. But... I did not give up and I drew the pawn down endgame anyways. Very reminiscent of the games at the Far West Open, I was down a pawn but my opponent was unable to make any progress. Anyways now I am down 1.5-0.5 so not out of this yet but I need a win very badly.

Under Pressure

2009-05-21T12:11:00.000-07:00

I finished the qualifier with 10/10, I did not end up playing the 11th game (incidentally against the highest rated player). But in spite of this I clinched the top seed from my group and have begun my match with Bill Case. I played 1.d4 in the first game. I also played this opening in the last game of the qualifier and scored a nice win. This game did not go so well for me. He played the Dutch, which I did not expect although I was not altogether unprepared. After an uninspiring opening I reached a roughly equal endgame and played very poorly, giving up my first loss at the Reno Chess Club in 2009. I completely lost the thread. It was a breakdown. I thought it would be pointless to go over the game until I am finished with the matches (or match if I cannot get out of this hole). I already know I can play better, it's stupid to look at how poorly I played, this will just be discouraging. I do not think the opening had much to do with the loss, I just didn't show up. Anyways, Game 2 is coming up tonight and I have the Black pieces. Down 1-0 with the Black pieces is a tough spot, especially considering it is only a 4 game match so I am already running out of time. He played well in the first game and I am just going to have to bring the A game out tonight. If I really believe that I can play at the master level then I need to be able to win games like this. Also if I win this match then in all likelihood I get a match with Garingo which I think everyone at the club has wanted to see (including us). I am very disappointed that I did not just lock down the half point in the first game. I was hallucinating. Anyways this was pretty much just a pity rant but hopefully tomorrow I'll have better news.

Breakthrough

2009-04-20T16:36:00.000-07:00

Last weekend I decided to play in the Far West Open tournament in Reno. I did not do very well. The first three games I played fine but in the last three games I found trouble keeping up. I think this is a symptom of not playing tournaments for the last 10 months. On Thursday I was in an experimental mood and opted for a position that stirred up some discussion at the club. Here is the game. There is more analysis after the break.

In winning this game I have clinched a spot in the next stage of the Reno Championship. This was not something I was very worried about but it was nice to clinch.

I want to talk about the exchange sacrifice. There are actually several motives behind the move 12.axb4. First as I discussed briefly in the notes I felt that the position after the exchange sacrifice was about equal but I was looking to be the one pressing. In the other lines that do not include the exchange sacrifice I do not get as much pressure on the Black position. Additionally, think about how this sacrifice affects Black. He played an innocent looking move, Bb4, the last thing he expects is for me to snap this bishop off. Although he has not yet equalized, his pieces are well placed and he will soon castle. My move changes the situation dramatically. Now Black must make an escape with his queen and his pieces become somewhat confused. The fact that the queen must spend several moves extracting herself from the queenside convinced me that I would be able to develop play on the kingside in the meantime. So psychologically after this move Black has a very different task and must completely change gears.

There is a factor that contributed more to my decision to play this move than the soundness of the sacrifice however. I believed it to be sound enough to play and I also believed there were alternatives that were strong. But the reason that I played the move is because last weekend at the Far West Open when I played Black I sacrificed a pawn in all three games. And in all three games I found compensation for the pawn quite easily (although I ended up losing two of these games). But the point of all this is that I was interested in the topic of positional compensation and this is why I entered the line in the game. I was just looking for further practice in a game with a material imbalance. These are topics that I have been studying a lot over the last 18 months, the positional pawn and positional exchange sacrifices. And only in the last 10 days or so do I feel that I have really begun to wrap my head around what constitutes positional compensation. So I wanted to show what I learned. I recognized immediately that no matter what happened I would have good drawing chances with the dark squared bishop for the rook so really I was never afraid of losing. And it turns out that I have strong compensation for the exchange and I carry a slight edge for almost the entire game, although the game is very close for some time. It is also interesting to note that at no time does Black have a decisive advantage, while I overlooked several immediate wins and finally managed to force one in time trouble. So in reality there was very little risk in playing 12.axb4, although it appears that this is simply a blunder (how can allowing Black to win the exchange with check be good?). While the upside potential to this move can be seen as soon as Black makes an inaccuracy which is inevitable in the complicated position that arises. I cannot say that I am surprised that White finds compensation in nearly all lines, I was confident when I played the move that it was not horrible. I find this game and the games I played with Black over last weekend to be very encouraging, my quest to understand these tricky positional sacrifices is finally bearing fruit.

The reason that I am so concerned with these sacrifices is because I believe that they are crucial to success at the 2000+ level. The idea is that we must get our opponent to accept a bad variation to get an advantage. One way to do this is by 'leveling' them (a poker term), thinking on the next level. When Black played Bb4, he was counting on the fact that the bishop could not be captured, but I introduced a new idea to the game and took it anyways. Radically changing the position and giving Black a situation that he had not fully evaluated and probably did not feel entirely comfortable in. By finding ways to show that our opponents threats are meaningless we can obtain an advantage even while allowing our opponents to carry out their own plans. The risk when sacrificing material is that either we will not get it back, or that our opponent will be able to counter-sacrifice to regain the initiative. So the key is to find positions where a long, lasting initiative is established. There is no way other than by going through many topical examples to recognize the proper context for this initiative and begin to develop a feel for when a rook is worth less or equal to a bishop. I'm just glad I'm starting to breakthrough this important barrier to advancement.

Qualifier Continues

2009-04-08T17:11:00.000-07:00

As I stated in my last post I am 8/8. I played poorly in the first of these three games but I am satisfied with my performance over the last two weeks. Here are the three games I promised.

Round Robin Math

2009-04-05T17:10:00.000-07:00

So I haven't posted in a while but right now I have some downtime and the internet so here goes... I have three new games that I should post this week. This post is a question to readers of this blog.

Is there anyway other than brute force to determine the end scenarios of a round robin in process?

I ask this question because I am playing a 12 player round robin at Reno Chess Club right now. If you click results you can see the cross table. I have a perfect score and I do not intend to start losing next game, however I was wondering if I had clinched a spot in the next stage of this tournament. I was able to find one scenario where I would not finish in the top 4 of my group:

IF:

I lose to Sheryka, Hong, and Alsasua.
Alsasua beats Hong, loses to Rand, and draws Fleming.
Hong and Rand draw.
AND Fleming beats Sheryka.

THEN the standings would look like this:

1.Rand 9
2.Alsasua 9
3.Fleming 8.5
4.Hong 8
5.Gafni 8

and I would be eliminated due to my loss to Hong.

I was wondering if there are any other combinations and just if anyone knows cool things about the math to round robins in general.

Sweet.

2009-02-11T13:38:00.000-08:00

In early January when I became really interested in chess again I set a new high 5-minute rating on ICC of 1715. Then I quickly lost 100+ points to go under 1600. Since I crossed back over 1700 I have set a new high almost every day I have played and my rating is 1933. Now I need to work on my standard rating which is lower than I can ever remember it being. Chess is fun again.

I'm Crazy.

2009-01-30T16:24:00.000-08:00

Conventional Wisdom says that against much weaker players we should just play a simple game because there is very little risk involved. I wanted to be somewhere 3 hours after this game started so I decided to complicate things. This game was really hard; I had so much fun. I definitely didn't know how to evaluate a lot of the positions, the material swings wildly around and both of our kings are open. My position is fragile and very time sensitive, but I was up to the challenge and I put some great moves together. It's just not my style to play a boring game.

I Need a New Repertoire

2009-01-28T11:18:00.000-08:00

I'm seriously considering switching to 1.d4 with white; also getting rid of 1...c5 and 1...d5 against e4 and d4 respectively. Some of the positions I get into I hate so much. Plus it would give me a good excuse to study chess all the time. Then after I was done I would be able to play 2 openings at any time which would be very nice in the match phase. I think the only reason I didn't switch lines a long time ago (especially the Accelerated Dragon) is that I put so much work into my lines I feel like I have to stick with them now. But that's not true, I really like learning new positions and I think it's the kick I need.

I Like Chess.

2009-01-24T14:04:00.000-08:00

The study plan is a distant goal at this point. Right now I am playing a lot of blitz, you can probably find me on ICC I'll play whoever. I'm having fun.

I won my game on Thursday, the whole thing lasted about 25 minutes. I played the Scotch it was a gametime decision I didn't prepare any lines. If I knew enough theory to just play whatever I wanted every game that would make me very happy. Work, work, work...

Dustin Off Some Classics

2009-01-20T12:19:00.000-08:00

I could make a lot of excuses for why I haven't been posting or playing or studying for the last six months but the truth of the matter is I was just bored of chess. I was considering not playing in the club championship but I'm sure I would have regretted it and I am glad that I decided to play. I also found inspiration to play in a very unexpected place and I feel like I am ready for some serious work at this game.

I am not happy with the format of the championship. I do not feel like we should have to play a 15 week round robin to decide who should move forward. I wish that this stage would have been limited to only 16 players, which would have taken half the time. I should not be having to play games with players rated 800 points lower than me. They don't have a chance. I'm glad to eat my words if one of these players moves forward but the chances of this happening are so slim that I feel comfortable saying that they should not be allowed to participate. Or at least should have to qualify in a tournament in December against other lower rated players. What I would suggest is only the top 16 rated players in the club (who want to play) get to play. I understand this is 'unfair' to players who are not rated in the top 16. Get over it, work harder, play next year.

That being said I do not have a really challenging game for 2 months and that gives me plenty of time to get back into the habit of studying. I figured I would lay down a plan since maybe that will make me more accountable.

Openings: I feel like my openings are in relatively good shape. I need to freshen up a few lines and maybe inject a few new ideas into my lines for Black. I don't think I need to change any lines, but if I find something I like I am not opposed to learning it. Also I haven't really been liking the White side of the Ruy lately so maybe I'll play the Scotch. In the past I have been very open about divulging opening choices and secrets on this blog, this year I really want to end that. I don't know if I will be posting games for the next 6 months. I know that's weak, I'll think about it. Anyways for openings I think to start 3-4 hours a week should be alright.

Middlegame: I have felt lost in the middlegame too much, I think the remedy for this is 5-10 games a day in my openings from strong players that I like. This will help me internalize the plans and concepts that stronger players are using in my favorite positions. It will also help me learn my openings, win-win.

Endgame: This is where I'm going to put most of my time. I want to be able to put an hour a day in but I don't know if I'm going to be able to actually do that. Maybe a post every day about my endgame training will keep me focused.

General Ideas: In the past I have read books, I think this year I'm going to move more to my database. I have so many resources on my computer that are untapped. I also want to start playing Fritz on a regular basis just for fun. I have been playing more blitz but my Standard rating on ICC is at what seems like an all-time low. So playing 1-2 Standard games a day should help bring that back up to an acceptable level.

I want to win this championship. I'm really worried about Garingo and Straver but I feel like if I stick to this plan throughout the round robin phase I will be playing at a higher level than I have ever played before. Which is all I can really ask for. I think that I can win I just need to put in the time to make it happen.

Essential Tournament Skills: What To Do When Everything Is Losing

2008-12-13T16:15:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I've really written on the subject of chess outside of game annotations. I want to do a series on the skills necessary for success in tournament play. I am not a chess master although I do aspire to be one someday but I have been playing in club tournaments and class tournaments along with fellow bloggers and I have defeated each class in succession through a method that worked for me. I do not think that this method can work for everyone but what I hope to do is inspire readers to develop methods that work for them.

I am mostly going to discuss practical skills that will help WIN games and tournaments. I think a lot of times people are hesitant to judge success by rating because it is true that one can gain a very full understanding of the game without ever playing a tournament game. Also the tournament format is very stressful for many people and they may be able to play much stronger chess when not under the immense pressure that is present in a large tournament hall. A rating is simply a comprehensive, objective, history of a player's performance in rated games. I believe that the goal of study is to increase performance in rated games; my approach reflects this.

Inside my most recent game and a surprise game....

When I got to chess club last Thursday I was not particularly excited, Garingo and I had some good blitz games but then I was slated to play Mike Filipas, a 1500-1600 player. These games with 400-500 point differences or more can be very uninteresting. Mike never really thought he had a chance and gave up shortly into the game after losing some material. Since this game was a disappointment I have also included a game from when I had Mike's rating and I played a very strong expert at the time. It was the first time I beat a player over 2000 in a rated game and the moment I realized that I could be an expert. From this game onward it was no longer if I would become an expert but when. I didn't know it would take over 6 years but hey, that's what happens when you take breaks and don't work that hard. Anyways, check out the games.

The games.

I also want to use this post to introduce what I consider to be a very important tournament skill: What To Do When Everything Is Losing. The point during a game where I feel the most frustrated is when I start to look at all the different moves and every move seems like it is bad. The moment when you realize that this position is not in your favor. It is tempting at this moment to become paranoid that my opponent knew he was winning all along and is going to finish me off in a swift and impressive manner. Alas, this rarely happens and I consider myself to be one of the feircest fighters from behind, definitely at Reno Chess Club, perhaps in the world... ;) hehe...

Hopefully this post and the subsequent posts will help you become more of a fighter when hope is lost. This post will simply open the discussion but in later posts I will introduce examples from my games (one game in particular really comes to mind, I haven't posted it yet but it is a definite favorite of mine) and also from top grandmasters who are put in a tough situation and take the necessary steps to correct the course.

So let's begin with a list of things to do when you fall behind in a chess game (or just feel like you're losing):

1. TAKE YOUR TIME: Obviously if this happens right before the time control and you have not budgeted your time wisely then this may not be an option, but in general on moves that I fall behind or have overlooked something I use much more time than an average move. Oftentimes between 10-20 minutes on a move like this is necessary to recover from the blow that your head will suffer and find the correct course of action. More on this subject in a little bit.

2. FIX YOUR HEAD: This is different for everybody and in time you will learn how to do this at the board. But it is very frustrating to put so much effort into something and 2-3 hours in be (seemingly) hopelessly lost. Your efforts have been fruitless and this is not good for the ego. Get up, look at some other position, go outside and punch the wall or yell out loud, get a drink, get something to eat, do something that is not chess related. If you do not want to look like something is wrong, get up and get a cup of water and return to your seat, this is perfectly normal and legal during your move and should not betray your dismay with your position if you're trying to maintain a poker face. At this point just try to forget the position.

3. REBUILD YOUR ASSUMPTIONS: This is more complicated. At this point in the game your evaluation is based on several assumptions you have made up to this point. However, these assumptions are all wrong. Whatever led you to this position is wrong. I know it's hard to admit, but you need to do it. You have been wrong about this game all along. You don't understand it, that's why you are losing. Accept that and you will free your mind for the coming stages. Look at the board with a fresh eye. You may find some move that is not losing at all, this is of course ideal and you would be surprised how often it actually happens. You started looking at the "normal, obvious" moves and all of them were losing, that's why you got worried, but there may be a line that you didn't think of or that was too complicated that is now beginning to make sense and you may not be in trouble at all. This is why it is very important to NOT MOVE for as long as possible. As long as you don't move you can't make a mistake. Also do not be afraid to spend a very long amount of time on this move.

4. STOP THE BLEEDING: This is where you have to actually start looking at variations again. You are not necessarily looking for a way to level the game. But you do not want to fall behind any further. Playing 80 moves in a losing position is a hard grind and it is not fun, but half a point is half a point. In a tournament setting, especially a large tournament, one loss is enough to get a player out of contention for first so preventing one loss is of the utmost importance if you are trying to WIN a tournament. At this point you have to look for variations that are safe and that release the pressure on your position. Just get your opponent to back off, then you can start to create chances. It is ok to reorganize all your pieces at this point as long as you are not falling further behind.

5. THINK OF AN ENDGAME: It is tempting when we fall behind to lash out and attempt some crazy suicidal mission where more material is sacrificed in the interest of an attack that cannot be sustained with the reduced material. The logic is that the game is lost anyway maybe they will make a mistake and I will win by accident. We do not want to seek points by accident. At this point you need to PLAN. Think of all the things you know about the new relationships on the board. Think of all the endgames you know with this imbalance. If you have lost the exchange, remember that if all the pawns and all the other pieces on the board are gone then you will have a draw, a rook cannot beat a bishop or a knight by itself. It is important to know these things so that you can pose your opponent the most difficulty along the coming stages of the game. If you can keep yourself from getting mated, then you want to give them the most complex middlegame and most difficult endgame you can, really make them earn the point.

I think that these points are a good place to begin a discussion. How do you feel when you fall behind in a game? When is it that you first realize you made a mistake? What steps do you take to try to overcome this challenge?

I know that this is an abstract topic, it is fairly psychological in nature and is not something that can be taught in a book. There is no objective best way to deal with the emotions that are present in a chess game. Every person has to deal with them in their own way. But this does not mean that this is not an aspect of our game that can be improved. And I believe that my dedication to playing the toughest in positions where I am behind has been very good for my rating and for my attitude about chess as a whole. If you think about and address this issue in your game I think that you will show improvement in your rating.

A Familiar Itch

2008-12-05T14:28:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week I was reading some blogs and BDK asked me when I was going to post again. Just from looking at all the chess out there I really wanted to play a game. So I took a trip down to the Reno Chess Club where I played yet another insanely fun game of chess. I also included a funny game Grant Fleming played last night. Enjoy.

Tonopah

2008-10-09T12:55:00.001-07:00

In my last post I gave you a sneak preview of one of the games in Tonopah. The other one is even more exciting. Both games after the break..

Warning: Do not attempt to learn anything from these games, they are for entertainment purposes only, DO NOT TRY TO PLAY LIKE THIS!

So the conclusion to the first game must be explained, as the final position is certainly not drawn. Around the 85th or 90th move I had 6 and a half minutes on my clock and my phone rang. I quickly turned off the ringer in my pocket and everything continued as normal. Then the TD (who was from the south) waved his hand in the air motioning 5 at me. I could not understand him. Then he said I had to take 5 minutes off my clock. I got up and disagreed with him that they did not provide adequate warning for such a rule and that if he had stated this rule in advance my phone would have been off (it pays to know the rules sometimes). Unfortunately at this time the captain of our team and National TD Jerry Weikel was out of the room so he could not back me up and the director took 5 minutes off my clock which left me with 90 seconds and left me extremely distressed. I ended up allowing myself to get mated unnecessarily and walked out without losing the game, my clock expired. Then when I got back I told Jerry what had happened and in a lengthy arbitration with the other team we agreed on a draw for the game. The rule should not have been enforced so I did not feel like the result of the game was fair. It was controversial for sure.

The second game features a very provocative move that is more like a bluff than anything else. It is not actually sound but it is so amazing to look at I think that it caught my opponent by surprise. Actually it has been played 3 times in my database and won 2/3.

Anyways it was an interesting experience going to Tonopah, I could have played a lot better but that's a different story.

White to Move And Win?!

2008-10-02T18:30:00.000-07:00

My most recent chesscapade was in Tonopah, NV:

View Larger Map

7 Northern Nevada players and 7 Southern Nevada players met there to decide the State Championship and the State Team Championship. Everyone played 2 games against someone of similar strength, a pretty standard team match. I faced Virgilio Reyes, the state champion from last year on board 2 of the teams. His rating is 2092. I have seen him play before and I'm sure we have played blitz games in the past but I don't think he remembered me. When I lived in Vegas we went to the same club for a while but I wasn't around for that long.

The first game I thought things were going pretty well and then we got to this position:

where White unleashed a pretty tactic that wins a piece. It's the first time I've been hit by something like this in a while. I felt like resigning but played on for about 80 more moves before we reached a drawn position and then some crazy stuff happened. Tune in later this week for the game and the dramatic ending.

Beat Kudrin Tournament

2008-09-20T19:51:00.000-07:00

This was the first tournament I've played since the club championship and also signaled an end to my short hiatus from chess. I lost my game with Weikel, but I feel pretty good about how I played in that game. I played very aggressively in all games and achieved quick wins in the four games I did win. My rating even went up a little bit. Here are all 5 games. They are pretty entertaining but I need to work harder to avoid the stupid mistakes that I made.

I still need to post some games from over the summer but I'm going to try and stay current in the mean time.

A Real Test...

2008-09-11T13:15:00.000-07:00

I have started playing at Reno Chess Club again and won my first three games. None of them went over 30 moves. Tonight I face Jerry Weikel, a Reno chess club legend and Tournament Director of the big Reno tournaments. He has been playing extremely well this tournament and I feel like this will be a very good game. I'm excited about it. Also I have been following the tournament in Bilbao, some amazing chess going on. I feel like I play much better when I've been watching high-level games. Not just looking over them but actually following them live. There was a post I started a long time ago about that topic that I never finished, I should probably work on that. Anyways.. just checking in.

Fischer Game 3

2008-08-31T15:10:00.000-07:00

At this point I was up 2-0 in the match so Fischer needed to win 2 consecutive games to stay alive. Needless to say, Fischer should have been reluctant to draw as this would eliminate him from the club championship, but I offered him a repetition and he chose to end the match this way. I was happy with the game, normally I would have played for a win but given the circumstances surrounding this game I felt that it was well worth just taking the half point.

Here is the game.

Fischer Game 2

2008-08-25T19:10:00.000-07:00

This is the second game of the Gafni-Fischer match that was the quarterfinal round of the club championship. This was right before my trip to Las Vegas and it is not a very impressive game. I play horribly. It's interesting to note that Fischer deviates from the Najdorf he played against me in the past (here and here).

This was my first game analysis in a couple months. Bear with me, I'm just warming up. I think part of the reason I've been slow to resume posting is because after I got out of the habit of analyzing games I forgot how much I enjoyed it. Hopefully more games to follow..

Hello Again Friends

2008-08-14T11:49:00.000-07:00

Hi.

I've been away from chess for a while. It probably requires some explanation. I went to Vegas for a chess tournament and left Vegas imfatuated with No Limit Holdem...

I used to only play Limit Holdem, which is ok, but then my friend started turning me on to no limit a couple months before I went to Vegas. After I lost the first round of the National Open, I decided to jump in a No Limit game to pass the time til the next round. I ended up playing all weekend and then when I came back to Reno I kept playing constantly. Hours and hours. Then I went to Israel for 2 weeks. I read poker books instead of chess books and started devoting more and more time to poker. And less and less time to chess. So for the past couple months I haven't really spent any time on chess.

Also contributing to my disinterest in chess was the fact that a good friend of mine would not give me an opportunity to make up our game from when I was in Israel and I was forced to take a forfeit in the Club Championship. Although I probably could have still won the match, I lost interest and didn't devote adequate time to chess during this match. My opponent played well and I lost 2 out of the three games. He wanted it more than me.

I also think that after gaining 200 points in under a year I needed some time to consolidate my growth. This has happened to me before. Sometimes it lasts a couple months, sometimes it lasts a couple years. But I always come back hungrier and stronger.

I am deciding whether to play tonight at the Reno Chess Club, the only reason I'm leaning towards not playing is because I know I won't get a strong game. On the other hand maybe I need a game against a weaker player just to get back in the mood. I'm definitely planning to play the Western States Open. Either way, I have over 10 games that are sitting there waiting to be analyzed. I should start working on them while I watch High Stakes Poker. :)

This bluff is so sick, they both just sat down this was the first hand of their session:

Gafni 1, Fischer 0

2008-06-01T23:00:00.000-07:00

I had decided that I would accept a draw, especially after my opponent decided to let out with the Exchange Slav. Likesforests, this game is really ironic....

Last week, likesforests posted about the Exchange Slav. I wrote a long comment about how there are still ways to out play White and differentiate the position. The two most common and effective ways are to play Bg6 instead of exchanging on d3 and try to make use of the open h file after the exchange, or to play Be7 instead of Bd6 and keep the dark squared bishop on.

Then Fischer played the Exchange Slav against me in our game on Thursday. I did not use my above methods of playing for the advantage and just played for a draw. This is really not typical of me but I really wouldn't mind going home rather than spend 4 hours in this position just to reach a draw anyway. I played the most boring variation of this opening that there is.

One part of my comment rang true though: "Any move on the queenside can be fatal...just prod the queenside looking for White to slip."

Somehow, from the position after move 10 that likesforests posted last week, a position that is drawn over 98 percent of the time, I managed to get a completely winning position in under 10 moves. So I played for the win. I actually managed to blow it though, I think Fischer had very good drawing chances towards the end.

It was good that that happened though because I figured something out. In my last three games I have been playing multiple plans at once. I get an advantage but then my pieces do not coordinate because I am trying to do too much. For instance in this game at the end I cannot decide between playing in the center, on the queenside or the kingside. I just make random moves on all sides of the board. If I had figured it out and just played on the queenside, I think this would have been a more efficient win. My pieces are not focused on a consistent goal, they are all over the place and this is how I get caught. Just some things I was thinking about...

Anyways it was nice to get a win in the first game. Should not be hard to produce 1.5 out of my next three games and secure a place in the semi-finals.

FOR RENT

2008-05-30T16:34:00.000-07:00

I have a room in Vegas at the Riviera but no roommate... anyone interested in splitting a room? It would be $46 each Friday and Saturday and $41 each Sunday, unless someone wants the floor then it would be even cheaper hehe.

Vegas Baby...

2008-05-28T01:23:00.000-07:00

Yeah.... so.... it's been a while...

I'm not really going to give you guys a good post, I'm not going to be posting much for the summer I don't think. I'm sure I'll throw an update in here and there though.

2 weeks ago I played Fischer, it was boring. I tried really hard to win cause he made it really clear he would take a draw and ended up in a losing position. He agreed to a draw I think cause he was short on time.

I'm playing him in the first round of the Club Championship, a four game match. I took Black for the first game. I'm going to let him play for a draw and then just take it. Then it's a best of 3 and I have 2 Whites.

My last two weeks I haven't been myself at the board. I'll play risky chess for a little bit but I'm taking small advantages and not looking to break things open with complicated play. That's not my style. I like to hang it all out there. So I have been studying. I'm into chess again. I went through like a month, maybe longer, where I couldn't get into it. I was playing well but I wasn't interested. But I think I'm over it.

I feel like I'm playing my best chess. Especially recently. I played 5 games in the last 2 days and they all felt really good. But I've only played 10 games on ICC this month. I've played some skittles with Nate and Vern but really I haven't even been playing chess. It's pretty weak. I need to step it up.

So I have. I'm back in a good routine. Couple hours a day. I'm out of shape. I'm not worried about it for the match with Fischer, but for Vegas and for the later rounds I am going to need to be on my game. I want to have 100 point summer. I have been consistently achieving 2100 performances with suspect play. I know I can play better though. I want to have a 2200-2300 average in my performances for the rest of the year. That seems like an achievable goal.

I think it was the difficulty of the work that has turned me off. Master almost seems out of reach even though it is so close. Sometimes it takes me time to appreciate the value of compounding work over months or years. I'm all about instant gratification, maybe why I can't win a won position... I know I can be a master, but how badly do I really want it?

The National Open is my favorite tournament. It was the first BIG tournament I played. I played it in 2004, 2005, and 2006. It is the tournament I look forward to all year long. I didn't play it last year because my brother graduated high school and there were other circumstances at play. I have never finished out of the top 10 in my section. I finished with 4.5/6 in the U1600 section two years in a row and then my third year in 2006 I tied for first in the U1800 section. Now two years later I have to play the U2200 section, which is a big leap. So I have to work. Go hard or go home. If I'm not going to work a couple hours a day I should really just quit because there are plenty of other things I could be doing than chess. But for now it's something that I'm good at, that I enjoy (although sometimes I forget that for a while), and that's enough to get me to spend time on it. What else is there?

Complications

2008-05-09T17:23:00.000-07:00

I have had two long, difficult games in a row over the last two weeks. One stirred up some discussion already when I posted diagrams from it. The one from last night is also interesting. Both are extremely complicated and it is very hard to understand the forces at work. I am glad that I was able to hang with these two great players during these two games because it shows that I am starting to get a hold of how to treat these types of positions. Both games I used a lot of time, but kept to a pretty good pace, other than the end of the second game when I probably needed another half hour to be able to secure the point.

The analysis included is lengthy but I hope it helps you to get a hold of these positions, they're wacky.

Enjoy.

Glad that's over.

2008-05-09T12:08:00.000-07:00

Last night I huffed, and I puffed...

but I couldn't blow Alsasua's house down. Just a draw, but good enough to clinch a spot in the next stage of the championship and that's the much more important factor.

I'm not happy with the result. I held the advantage for almost the entire game and failed to produce the point. Last night after the game I just drank with a friend instead of the usual crazy insomniac state I get when blowing a win (where I'm up until the wee hours of the morning proving to myself that I should have won).

I'm also not happy with the way this tournament went. I played two good games out of six (that's counting last night as a good game...). That's not going to cut it. There's one round left but I am already looking ahead to the championship phase and the National Open in June. I think I should be able to produce good games with some extra effort. So that's where I'm at.

As far as the rest of this tournament there are 4 players who have clinched and 3 players with the potential to have 4 points or more, if they all achieve 4 then the 7 spots are decided. However if one of these players falters then there will be a whole bunch of 3.5's looking for the 7th spot. That's going to be a clusterfuck.

I also want to offer an apology to anyone that took offense to the statement I made regarding players at the club looking at my games with contempt. It was generated more by my own paranoia than anything, I overreacted. Instead I offer this...

Love me or hate me still an obsession
Love me or hate me that is the question
If you love me then Thank You!
If you hate me then Fuck You!

Multiple Choice

2008-05-07T09:51:00.000-07:00

An interesting metaphor I have thought of....

Chess is like a multiple choice test. There are a limited number of options, most of which can be eliminated on sight. Of the remaining options, each creates distinct solutions, and it is a player's job to distinguish between these solutions and choose what's best for him (her). Note that I did not say what's objectively best, although sometimes this is required.

Instead of a teacher or a computer going through and deciding your grade based on your errors, there is an implied curve given by the strength of your opponent. And the grade is pass/fail. If you consistently make better decisions than your opponent, you will pass. The test is stopped at any point where one player has provided overwhelming evidence to the other that the result has been decided.

Each move is a complex multiple choice problem that must be evaluated by using the sum of all of a player's chess knowledge. All possible themes, exchanges, key squares, and maneuvers must be studied and an answer must be produced which encompasses the most favorable elements of the position and minimizes the harmful or unfavorable elements.

In the beginning of a player's chess career decisions are based on superficial elements and unsound attacks. As a player becomes more prepared decisions and problems get deeper and deeper and his perception at the board is radically different than the beginner. He is making less mistakes because he is aware of much more powerful forces on the board. Things that were not there when making a legal move was the only struggle.

I think what got me on track to reach this conclusion is Kotov's method. The first step: identify candidate moves. Why are candidate moves stressed? Isn't there more to it? One move just doesn't seem like enough. I used to think in 2-5 move plans, searching deep for tactical combinations and complicated, radical, imbalanced positions. But chess really is as simple as one move. A game is just a series of positions. We must strive to make the best decision in every position as often as possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

But what is the best decision? Aren't there positions where there is not an objectively best move? YES! The most primitive example is move 1. White has 4 main options (1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, and 1.c4). The decision between these is usually made at home and is based on a series of factors including but not limited to: a player's style, past results with each move, opponent's style or opening choice, risk tolerance/aversion, even position in the tournament. However the constant remains that this is a choice between limited options, and the game must still progress one move at a time.

OK, now that I have bored you with this lengthy theory, I want to talk a little bit about application. I have had this post in the back of my mind for a while, and the timing was prompted by a couple of the comments to my last post. For instance, soapstone says:

It might be a silly argument to say that if your opponent made fewer mistakes then you would lose, but what's valid is the assumption is that we're all trying to get stronger and reducing error rate when we play the less fallible people of the next level. So essentially we're all agreeing with Zukertort. "Chess is the struggle against error."

chessaholic brought up the Bobby Fischer quote: "All that matters on the chessboard is good moves."

These two quotes illustrate my point very well. It is so easy due to the competitive nature of the game to allow emotion and prejudice into the mind during a game. How many times has a chessplayer said "I was completely winning and then...." after losing a game? I know I used to say it a lot. And I believed it. Because it was much easier to believe that than to accept the truth. I suck. A lot. I make mistakes all the time. I may have had the better position but if I don't understand it well enough to get a point then how was I winning? The Fischer quote is excellent. A strong player's focus must shift from attempting to explain the position in static terms to simply making good moves. We must try to minimize errors, that is all. It's not about some vicious attack on the king, or the style with which you win, or how awful your opponent is playing, it's about YOU. The game is really only one player, making one move. Over and over again.

I don't know what to take
Thought I was focused but I'm scared
I'm not prepared

I hyperventilate
Looking for hope somehow somewhere
And no one cares
I'm my own worst enemy

We all know the story of Capablanca being asked how many moves ahead he looked. He responded ONE.

LEP brought up the fact that many games at the class level are decided by one horrible blunder and so sometimes blaming a loss on a simple oversight is valid. I disagree. Why are there horrible blunders? How can a player lose track of a heavy piece? Did they forget it was on the board? Obviously they didn't 'see' it. But everything is laid out. They know how the pieces move. They know how the pieces interact. How can we reach the conclusion that we are winning if we cannot even see a simple knight fork? How can we even claim to have any understanding of the position if we overlook such simple moves? The truth is that when we understand the position we see clearly, we do not overlook things, we do not make mistakes. It is when the position is beyond our comprehension that mistakes become easy. It is no longer easy to distinguish between moves. There is no way for us to tell how to proceed because our knowledge of this particular imbalance is limited.

Let's consider a scenario. Let's say that a player is about to lose all activity and be forced into a passive game. A weak player does not even recognize this and continues to make moves as if the game will just miraculously open up. If he is playing another weak player who doesn't realize his advantage then he may open the game up and then the weak player gets rewarded for poor play. If he is playing a stronger player he will start to feel cramped slowly and lose the game to some tactic eventually. He will probably feel that he was at least equal in the final position and will feel robbed by this tactic. He is unable to recognize that for the next 20 moves he would have had to sit and wait as the strong player keeps laying on threats until he is in zugzwang and loses.

Same scenario: intermediate player. An intermediate player will likely realize that he is behind and will start to panic. He will either make a rash decision to sacrifice a large amount of material for a king attack, or he will turn the game completely passive and attempt to salvage a draw. Against an intermediate player the outlandish sacrifice may be rewarded or the passivity may result in a draw. Against a strong player neither of these strategies will work and he will be outmaneuvered. He will feel like there was nothing he can do. He just got beaten. He will blame the opening for giving him such an awful position and not ever allowing him a chance in the game.

Now let's talk about a strong player. A strong player will not panic. They will see the opponents threat and attempt to thwart it. They know that the position has not reached a point where their opponent has achieved a decisive advantage but that if they do not act now they are going to get beaten. They will find a way to sacrifice a pawn, or maybe an exchange for a piece and a pawn, to salvage activity and create complications. They will transform the position. They recognize that passivity will not work and he will begin to consider moves that radically change the nature of the position. Something that the lower rated players cannot do as either they are not aware that they are losing or they do not know how to shift the focus of the game smoothly. A strong player will simply continue to examine all the options and play what they think is best. Perhaps they will lose. Perhaps the advantage really was decisive. But their approach to the game throughout is consistent. They don't let up, they don't get frustrated, they just play one move at a time. If they lose they attempt to find a better solution, a better way to go about it. Not to prove to the world that they were 'winning' at some point. But so that they gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the position. Next time when they face a similar problem the time they spent examining the depths of their previous game will pay dividends, they will have a better reaction.

This is the heart of the matter. As a chessplayer struggling against error we must attempt to always play positions better. All kinds of positions. Every position. Our openings must be constantly improving. Our endgame theory must be constantly improving. Strategy and tactics as well. All we can do is strive to be able to produce the best move most of the time. To not get caught off guard by something we overlooked at home or on the board.

This theory should be applied in our attitude towards the game. No emotion. No fear. No whining. No cockiness. All we must do at the board is find all possibilites, eliminate the ones that are obviously inferior (establish candidate moves), and decide between options that look equal which best suits our style of play and which provides easier decisions later.

The Saga Continues...

2008-05-05T10:59:00.000-07:00

The Club Championship Qualifier is getting very intense. Going into the fifth round I was tied for 4th place with 2.5/4. There are sixteen players competing in a 7-round swiss for 7 spots in the quarterfinal round where there will be a series of matches to determine the winner much like the NBA or NHL playoffs. I believe that 4/7 is a good enough score to make the next round (3.5 may be able to make it on tiebreaks but that's not a good situation). I was paired against Garingo with Black. He had only 2 points after forfeiting a week earlier because he had to work. So this is how I figured things were: if I lose, I have to score 1.5/2 to get to the next round; if he loses, he has to score 2/2 to get to the next round... THIS IS MUST WIN FOR BOTH PLAYERS. Neither player could really afford to lose the game, so all week this was a nervewracking situation as I knew he probably has the best chance of anyone at the club (save maybe Straver) of beating me. Also since I've racked up 3 in a row against him I thought he would be particularly vengeful. I was nervous.

The situation between me and Garingo has certainly escalated into a full blown rivalry. He underestimated me in the past but I knew he would be ready for this game. I was so nervous about it I decided to follow lep's advice and step back from chess. I played poker all day on Wednesday. I mean all day, I played from midnight to 2:30 in the morning online, then woke up for work and played on my work computer (this may cost me but I'm so fed up with my job right now I'm not really worried about it), then went and played 3 hours in a casino. I've been reading a book that my friend lent me and it's making me really want to play cards. So that's what I did.

So come Thursday morning I was still craving some poker but I put it aside and decided to look at chess. I have played 4 games against Garingo with Black and all of them he has played e4, but from blitz games I knew he was also comfortable playing d4 so I didn't want to rule it out. In spite of this I only looked at my Sicilian and I couldn't decide between the Najdorf and my Accelerated Dragon so come game time I hadn't made much progress and it was still going to be a game time decision (I was actually leaning heavily towards the Accelerated Dragon). We sit down to play and I start the clock and he takes his time and starts adjusting his pieces...

I know in about 10 seconds he's going to play 1.d4 but he still makes me wait about a minute to confirm it. Oops... guess I should have spent the 15 minutes it would have taken to get a hold of the sharp positions that come out of the Anti-Moscow Gambit rather than deciding between two Sicilians all day. I had a sneaking suspicion he would play this but I was caught with my pants down.

So here's where I end up on move 14. I'm in deep trouble. I just moved my knight to b6 and I'm getting punished for it. The queen has nowhere to go (it belongs on b6) and my dark squares are falling apart. I feel like the Penguins going down 3-0 in Game 1 of their series against the Rangers. This is not the start I had hoped for. I am especially angry with myself for not looking at these lines even though I knew there was a high probability he would play 1.d4. It's not that I could have found his line and prepared for the actual position, more that just from looking at 4-5 games in the line afterwards it is very clear the the knight has no business on b6. This is a stupid mistake and now I'm in a lost position. We are about 25 minutes into the game and it is already over...

A mere 6 moves later Garingo tries to administer a crushing blow. It is now my 20th move. At move 14 I decided to castle into the attack and challenge Garingo to mate me. As an attacking player I know that when the king becomes the focus of the attack it is hard to change focus. I have made this mistake time and time again, I start looking at mates and I overlook simple winning endgames. I am trying to distract him from the fact that he is winning and bait him into an attack. So that worked, and I was crushed until he got eager and threw the move d7? This allows me back in the game with an exchange sacrifice. A piece and a pawn for a rook is one of the most common material imbalances and the health of the piece and pawn depends on activity, right now I am still behind although I have play on the d4 pawn so I figured that was some compensation. If Garingo doesn't play d7 here I am crushed.

Now we tune in another 7 moves later. The king looks a little safer although there are still some threats. I feel a lot more comfortable. White has sacrificed the d pawn to put pressure on my position so I now have full material compensation for the exchange although I am still behind positionally. I get the feeling Garingo is still looking to attack my king. It is my 27th move, I have been defending for 13 moves and it has been well over 2 hours since the start of the game. I am on a good pace as I have 15 minutes left for my remaining 4 moves and here I find a very strong idea to defend. I realize that the key to my position is defending the 6th rank and I decide to abandon the 7th and 8th ranks to achieve this goal. This idea ends up equalizing.

OK, so the time control has passed at this point. It's my 34th move. This is the first move since move 14 where I feel like I can breathe. I no longer have to respond to threats. After 2 and a half hours of just waiting and waiting thinking I was going to lose. I finally get a chance. That's longer than an NBA game, with commercials and half time. Much longer than defending for 90 minutes as in soccer, which I think would have to be the closest parallel to chess in the sporting world. For instance, anyone who watched the first leg of the Barcelona - Manchester United Champions League Semifinal Match knows how exciting a draw can be and what it looks like to press for nearly the entire game and yet fail to achieve anything decisive.

It is so easy to give up in games like this. To stop looking for chances and just play prophylactic moves hoping to draw. But the defense is in vain if there is no counter attack. If you throw away the chances that your opponent gives you. In this position I have just a little bit of breathing room, and I quickly manage to equalize and gain the advantage. It felt something like this (this comes from Game 1, after the Rangers had been up 3 goals):

Before the game I was actually talking to Chris Harrington about the transition from an advantage to equality and I cited that this is a place where many people make mistakes. In this game White starts making mistakes as soon as the nature of the game has changed and doesn't quite realize that Black is in control. By the time he does, it's too late:

This is the last diagram of importance, only 6 moves later on Move 40. I will use the bishop to defend the pawn and then advance my king. The bishop and pawn are immune since I have an extra pawn, otherwise White would be able to sacrifice Rook for bishop and pawn and equality. In this case that just leaves me with a won rook ending. I savored the rest of the game and took some advice phaedrus gave me to heart. After all, if I can't win this ending what was the point?

During the last few games I have felt like people are looking at my position with contempt, as though I am completely lost and I am just swindling wins. Shoemaker even went so far as to say that in the Pearson game "If any of the A's or Experts had that same position, he would have gone home with a loss." Immediately after my game Terry Alsasua, my opponent next week, walked over and showed everybody the 'win', which merely perpetuates White's advantage but does not produce a point.

Well, for you guys who think that I deserve to lose games, allow me to shed some light on a few things. There are two ways to win a chess game: checkmate and resignation. I have been able to show, even from devastatingly lost positions, that these two things are not so easy to achieve. This is a point that I have been making for quite some time. Chess would be a lot easier if all you had to do was obtain a winning middlegame. Maybe you would suggest next time that we call Ernie over and adjudicate the round when I give up material or take a lost position. For months I have tried to explain that chess is a game of mistakes. I keep saying lost positions are only lost if you are more likely than your opponent to make a mistake. This position was extremely complicated. I'm not even entirely convinced that Garingo has a smooth transition to a winning endgame and there are many ways to slip as he did in the game. If you look at my game with contempt, I'm sure you will find mistakes, but that will not stop you from making mistakes when we are face to face.

I am REALLY tired of players who will blame a loss on one move or even worse, the opening. Sentences like "Well I blundered and then the game's pretty much over." really mean 'and then I pretty much stopped playing'. "I messed up the opening" means 'He surprised me and I stopped playing chess and watched him beat me'. A won position does not equal a win. No one loses when they deserve to win. Every point is earned. If you are not willing to own up to mistakes then you will never correct them and your development as a player will be severely stunted. Everyone makes mistakes, that's part of the game.

I'll post the full game with annotations shortly, just wanted to give a picture of how I felt during the game and how the game progressed.

The Qualifier Continues

2008-04-28T19:00:00.000-07:00

My first two games of the championship qualifier were scary. I ended up ok but I played absolutely horrible chess. The third game was similar...

But the fourth game went really well.

Here are the two games.

The main thing I was doing in the fourth game that I wasn't doing in the first three games is rejecting my own conclusions. Over time I was able to gain a firmer grip on the position and avoided making mistakes out of carelessness.

I really wanted to win but more than that this felt like a must win game. I was not positioned well in the tournament after losing my third round and also it was against Shoemaker who I have a not so secret vendetta against. I told him I would beat him 10 times before he ever beat me. I have 3 after last Thursday... Vern Young said "If you had lost that game you would have never heard the end of it."

During the day of this game I felt an overwhelming sense of confidence. It was very weird. I knew that I was going to win I just had to pace myself and continue finding strong moves. And that's what I did. I used my time well and I produced a nice clean win. No chances for white, no tricks, just steadily building on a lead. Just like I said I wasn't doing in the last post. I haven't felt this good about a win in months, my play was very strong. It was a good day.

Sorry Team...

2008-04-23T19:00:00.000-07:00

I joined wang and chessaholic as a Patzer Boy and proved that I am a huge patzer. Playing on board one against a 1650 I obtained a huge advantage and decided that the game was going to play itself. I could make a lot of excuses but really I just played horribly. Meh, it's round one. Here's the game. Try not to laugh at the end.....

I Lost Interest, But It's OK

2008-04-22T15:04:00.000-07:00

So I've been playing poorly (I lost last Thursday) and I really think I needed a break from chess. Good thing my coach is playing in the European Individual Chess Championship right now. I was in the wrong state of mind for chess. I was more in love with my recent accomplishments than with the game. And that's bad. I wanted to improve my chess, I didn't want to learn chess. So to reinstill a love of the game I dusted off Great Predecessors Part 2 and looked through the first two games...

And it worked! I like chess again. A lot. I forgot what it was about. I forgot why I was good in the first place.

The last three games I've played I've been playing carelessly. I haven't been focused on making the best move. I've just been making moves and hoping that I get to a position where I can just win. I joked with my friend who I've been playing poker with lately that poker has been ruining my chess. We're playing these $50 buy-in tournaments at a local casino on Monday evenings and they're intense. It's 2 hours of decision making and it's a different form of decision making than in chess. In poker you cannot possibly have all the information, not so in chess.

The best part of the Predecessors series is Kasparov's analysis. It's deep. If I get lazy and read just the moves I get bored easily, but once I play through the variations I see why all of them are included. Also they usually bring to light themes that are not pursued in the game.

Euwe-Bogoljubow 1921 is the second game. I must note that the first comment to this game is by 'drukenknight', this is not me. I have never made a comment on chessgames.com. I spent a full hour looking at this game last night. It wasn't really only this game since there are several games embedded in the text, but still. It's a line that I play for white and it's a very interesting one.

After 21.Qf6! the endgame is lost for Bogo, but even this move is fascinating. It seems white has an attack and would want to keep the queens on, but Euwe just simplifies and quickly decides the game. Anyways if you scroll through the game quickly it looks like Black gets crushed. And he did. But.... THERE IS SO MUCH PLAY FOR BLACK. I couldn't believe how much. Even after 13.Bg6, Nd4! keeps the game level. I want to talk a little bit about how there is so much play, and then about how this heightened my perception of chess.

OK, so looking at move 12.Rh3, this is the crucial moment. Euwe has just completely committed to a kingside attack. Kasparov gives two other games in the notes where Euwe uses this Rh3 and Bg6 idea to beat this variation, it's a nice attack. So Black must mobilize his pieces or he is done. One of the things that was always unattractive to me about these positions for Black is that he is so underdeveloped it seems as though White will have no trouble executing any plan he wishes. It turns out that this is not the case. Instead of 12...Qa5 Black must play 12...cd which forces White to recapture. So after 13.cd Black plays just Bd7 (or Qa5 and then Bd7, no real difference). White's threat after Bg6 is that if fxg6 Qg6 and then after the king moves Qf6 winning the h8 rook. So Bd7 defends this rook with the a8 rook and takes away the threat. For instance 12...cd 13.cd Bd7 14.Bg6? Qa5 15.Kd1 fxg6 16.Qg6 Kd8 17.Qf6 now accomplishes nothing because of 17...Kc7 which holds everything. Just realizing this was absolutely amazing to me. The inclusion of the simple pawn exchange completely nullifies the attack.

So that's definitely not all the analysis in the book, but it is enough for the scope of this discussion. I am not looking at enough themes when I play. I want to get the game down to one line and just play that one line but there's so much more to every move. So many themes that I am just ignoring. I'm not giving chess enough credit. It is much deeper than the little traps I set and the checkmates I see. I am increasingly defaulting to moves that look good rather than moves that are good. I know how to find good moves. I really do. But so much of the time I am just waiting to find a knockout. I don't even know if I'm capable at this point of just building on an advantage. The thought sounds foreign. Going back through my games this is what I'm missing. I just want to win right away.

What I really needed to get from last night was that BLACK HAS PLAY. My opponent has play. There's always play in a position. ALWAYS. Kasparov in his book is able to insert complications that have been found in the 80 years since this game has been played but in reality he just sheds light on modern chess. In a recent post chessloser was saying that he wants to speed up his process of learning by looking at modern games. The problem with that is that modern games break the rules. They play positions that are 'unplayable'. Positions we naturally reject because we cannot possibly comprehend the depth of their thought. Games at the top level traditionally followed a set of rules, and these rules were steadily broken (new rules were introduced - double isolated pawns, exchange sacs, positional pawn sacs, etc.) until we got where we are today.

The game is about constantly fighting. Not only making the best move (as this is subjective a lot of the time) but presenting your opponent with unsolvable problems. To do this sometimes you have to accept unsolvable problems as well, and this is what annotators mean by positions that are unclear or have chances for both sides. Then you just fight. Minimax style. Limit their chances and maximize your own. That's what it's about. Sometimes I forget and I think I see a win, but all I really have to do is shut my opponent down. In order to do that I have to remember that there is ALWAYS PLAY FOR BOTH SIDES.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

2008-04-14T19:00:00.001-07:00

After I scored my fourth consecutive point at the Western States last October I lost a game in 12 moves cause I dropped a piece. Someone who had been watching the fourth game asked me how I did in the fifth round and when I told him what happened he said "You're a freak!"

Check out the first two rounds of the Club Championship Qualifier.

There's this weird side of me that comes out sometimes and I don't really know why or how but I miss the most obvious things. Luckily in this tournament I have managed to salvage 1.5/2 points and I am tied for third with Simanis. If I continue to play like this I may not even earn a spot in the finals.

Far West Open 2008 Continued

2008-04-14T19:00:00.000-07:00

So it occurred to me today that I haven't posted my games from rounds 4-6. It's been almost a month! Since I've been holding out on you guys, here they are.

The first game is disappointing to me. I fell apart after I saw that he had found some good strategy. In reality I was still in the game.

The second game I just made a typical 'Gafni' blunder (more to come in the next post). Somehow I get away with having a high rating and still making awful, awful moves. It happens, that game sucked.

The third game was a nice way to close out the tournament, sure he played horribly but I finished him well.

Live: Midnight Study Session

2008-04-08T00:00:00.000-07:00

I thought this might be a cool idea...

12:00 AM: I'm in my garage. I have a board to my right and I'm on my computer (hehe). I went over some rook endings earlier today per my last post (I've been working on 4 pages of Dvoretsky for a week). Though not for very long. I also played a few games today. I won them all, but in one specifically I had a very bad position. I got caught in an opening trap. The other two had interesting openings too and I realized I haven't been looking at openings so enter midnight study session.

Game 1: Open Ruy

This one I did not get caught in a trap just didn't really know the theory and I want to feel more comfortable next time I play the position. The game went:

So now I want to get a feel for these other options, I'm not sure I want to be playing 9.a4, let's take a look at the other moves. I start by running an Opening Report on the position after 8...Be6. For those of you unfamiliar with the Opening Report it is a fantastic tool. It takes the position and gives you all of the options for the other side as well as statistics and famous players who take each side. For instance:

In this line I have 22 games where Anand plays Black, 86 games where Korchnoi takes Black, and even 44 games where Euwe takes Black. Since these are world class players, they will have world class opponents, and this usually means quality theory.

So I click on the 44 games for Euwe and a few of the notable White opponents are: Alekhine, Boguljubow, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Keres, and some guy named Fischer, R. I'll look at those games.

Alekhine-Euwe (2 games)

I looked at the game from 1937 first, Euwe demonstrates how to maintain the balance with queenside expansion. Very nice technical game holding the great attacking player Alekhine at bay. Then I looked at the game from 1935, Euwe was even more impressive here. He obtained a completely won position and then squandered the advantage attempting to simplify. Alekhine found the beautiful 38.b4 and began a dangerous pawn race which was enough to equalize. Very cool game. But Euwe definitely demonstrated his proficiency in this line. Let's see how future generations handled it.

Boguljubow-Euwe 1941

This game is a little later, Euwe crushes Boguljubow easily with an attack on the kingside that is nothing short of fierce. Very good stuff. When is White going to learn to play this?

I notice that in Keres's games against Euwe, he managed to find a form, losing the first game in 1937, he drew in 1939 and then won in 1948. I went through in chronological order.

Keres-Euwe (3 games)

In the 1937 game Keres gets crushed. Euwe beats him on both sides of the board and controls everything. By 1939 Keres has found some interesting ideas, he attacks on the kingside immediately and effectively. Euwe answers by also attacking on the kingside, interesting, and finds good resources to force a drawn endgame. This one was hanging on the edge. In the third game Keres has found the answer. He fights for the d4 square and establishes a good knight on d4 to play against the horrible bishop on e6. A very interesting method, he allows Euwe to trade on b3 recapturing with the a pawn and giving himself double isolated b pawns, and then manages to trade b3 for c5 to firmly establish control of the d4 square and the game. Keres certainly matured in the 10 years in between his first session with Euwe. That's cool.

The Fischer game is not interesting but the Smyslov game, which appeared 3 rounds after the Keres game in the 1948 World Championship is impressive.

Smyslov-Euwe 1948

Smyslov must have sensed the weakness of the queenside after the Keres game and destroys the whole queenside complex, relying entirely on his lead in development. This is a very good Smyslov game.

OK, so after Smyslov and Keres destroyed this opening in 1948, let's see Korchnoi revive it.

Hm. Karpov-Korchnoi is 13 games... That's a lot. Also appearing on the White side: Tal, Bronstein, Geller, Shirov, Ponomoriav, Ivanchuk, and Timman. It's now 1:00, I'm going to call it a night. I think this was productive though. And I know where to go from here to learn this opening.

To be continued....

PS: It's my birthday today.

I'm still here.

2008-04-02T10:28:00.000-07:00

I took a break from posting. I haven't even really looked at my fourth round game and that was supposed to be my next post so it will be a little while. Maybe tonight actually, but I'm not sure. After posting my first three games my life got a little busy. I used the weekend to make up on the snowboarding I missed during the tournament. But I wasn't giving up on chess. Quite the contrary...

I met for the fourth time with my coach on Saturday. The first two times were just him feeling me out and then the next two times I wanted to look at endings and I also showed him my games from the Far West. So we looked at them and I got a lot of ideas from him. It wasn't just him giving me advice and lines and finding good moves. It was more his evaluation of my attitude at the board and my approach to the game. Then when we were doing endings I got a little embarassed by my lack of knowledge in such simple positions as Lucena and Philidor.

So since then I've been working on those positions a lot. And I realized these positions are fairly easy. I've just never taken the time to really learn them. Not just learn the principles, I know those, learn the positions. Just like I know my openings. It's good to know the themes, but there are a few key positions and I should know them, know how to get into them, know how to win and draw them. In my sleep. I'm starting to see why these positions are important. After all getting a won ending is the goal of chess. What if I ended up in a won R+P ending and I couldn't convert? That's not the way to beat a master.

But there's more. I used to study all three phases of the game at a time. I think that during these periods I learned the most. I recommended it to chessloser and Vern at the tournament because I think it is a key element in my success. When I encountered these positions, I went over them, but I didn't learn them. Whereas when I encountered problems in the opening I looked to solve them completely, really learn them. And whereas when I found interesting middlegames I would look for numerous examples of the theme. In the ending I got lazy. I couldn't build the necessary motivation to learn these endings really well. So I stopped studying the ending. And now I have ok endgame knowledge that is a poor complement to my strong opening and middlegame. I can't help thinking how many endings I've avoided because 'rook endings are drawish'. I don't even know what a won rook endgame looks like.

So what's the point of all this? Study endings right. Well yeah, but there's more. When we used to run the mile in PE I used to sprint the last 100-200 yards as hard as I could because I knew I had the strength in me to do it and that was the end. Right now I'm 180 points away from that magic 2200 number. Also this is my first club championship so I thought: what better way to squash the doubt that I am the best player at the Reno Chess Club than to win the championship and make master the same year? So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to win the club championship and sprint to the master title this year. Period.

Since I've hired a coach, it would be a waste of time to not study as hard as I can. If I lean on him for support then I will get nowhere, but if I take his suggestions to heart and learn the positions he wants me to then he can help me move forward.

When I have found determination to study in the past I have achieved strong gains very quickly. Usually I have the knowledge to outplay my rating first, then my play comes second. That's how it has to go again. I have been focused on improving my play but it is time to turn back to knowledge and just learn as much as I can over the coming months.

I knew I had expert in me, so I slowed my studies and just kept winning til I got it. But now it's time to really prove myself. Everything up until now has just been leading up to this push. This final push. I've known I was capable of being a master since I was very young. Time to push myself hard and prove it to everybody else. Catch me if you can.

Knockout.

2008-03-26T15:11:00.000-07:00

I woke up around 8 for the 10am start to Round 3. Satisfied with my performance thus far but itching for a kill. Had a great breakfast, showed up a little early and got to do a belated postmortem with Pupols which was very cool. The pairings were up when I got there and I was due to play White for the second time in a row against a low rated expert. I showed up to the board a couple minutes after the round started, he wasn't there yet, set up my clock and moved 1.e4. He showed up after a few minutes and opened 1...c5. I played 2.Nf3 and he played 2...d6. Nowhere to run now... he gets to pick his poison but I'm strong in all of the 5 options after 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3. When he played 5...a6 and introduced a Najdorf I was feeling good. I played my 6.Bg5 and went downstairs to buy an Arizona Green Tea [a staple this tournament], which I was drinking during my turnaround in Round 2 after I got frustrated with the position and the small cups we were supposed to be drinking water out of. Even though I was ready to rattle off the next 6-7 moves he seemed pensive and I decided to take some time and calm down a little bit.

The game is here.

I had used 12 minutes to get to move 15 when I play Nd5. At this point he took over 40 minutes to play the forced exd5. It must have been brutal to be on the Black side of this mess.

As for me, right after I played Nd5 I went to my friend and said 'check out my game, it's over already'. From there I just converted what was a huge advantage. There were some semi-interesting lines towards the end for him but pretty much he was hoping for some kind of miracle.

So I was undefeated with 2 points through the first 3 rounds. And in the evening I was going to face a much stronger player....

A Little Freaked Out

2008-03-25T19:00:00.000-07:00

This is Round 2. My first shot at a master. Apparently he is a legend in the Seattle chess scene. His name is Viktors Pupols. I played the opening terribly. Then recovered well and had a better game until he forced a draw. This game is probably the least eventful of the bunch.

Surprise! I'm hosting the game here.

Hope you like the format, I like it much better but it was a little tedious to get it to work. Still not that bad, if anyone wants tips let me know.

This was my first result against a master. This game is also very significant because it guaranteed that I would earn a FIDE norm. In order to get a FIDE rating you must play 3 FIDE rated players and earn 1 point out of 3. Then you must complete 6 more games (I read on the comments to one of iw's posts that you then have to score .5 out of your next 3, but I have not found this anywhere else). So I have 6 after this tournament but if I hadn't scored 1 point in my first three I don't think they would have counted. I'm not entirely sure of the rules but it's not that important since I fit all of the above criteria I just need 3 more games.

I was very happy with my 2 draws, even though I hate draws. It was a good way to start the tournament. I didn't really know what to expect for Round 3 the next morning. I figured I probably wouldn't necessarily play a stronger player and that I might get an easier game. Guess you're going to have to wait until tomorrow to find out...

Insanity.

2008-03-24T19:00:00.000-07:00

This is the Round 1 game. It looks like I'm letting White walk all over me but then it goes crazy.

I was surpised to find how many mistakes we each made. I did not know there were wins for White hanging around. My opponent was shocked by Nc2 and this is probably why he could not find the best lines. I'll take it....

Quick Summary

2008-03-24T13:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Win at All Costs

2008-03-20T17:51:00.000-07:00

Going into the weekend with posts like chessloser's hanging around I figured I would share some thoughts about tournament play.

I am aware that there are people out there who just go to tournaments to enjoy themselves and get some good chess in. I respect that, but that is not what I go to a tournament for. I think this is what really got to me in LA. I don't play well if I'm not in the running for first. As soon as I cannot win the tournament I am depressed. Even a top 10 finish has been known to disappoint me. I'm sure that I've won money in more tournaments than I haven't, even if it wasn't enough to recoup the entry fee it was enough to feel like I played well.

I play to win. Every game, every move I'm thinking about winning. I hate draws and will lose games trying to at least create problems for my opponent. Although more recently I find drawing lost games as quite an accomplishment and I'm enjoying that.

People like me often get criticized because all we think about is our rating, but in reality all I think about is winning. My rating is just coming along for the ride, a good indicator of how much I've won. How good I've actually played. I used to think that I was stronger than my rating, but I'm not. No one is. Every point is earned.

The way I've kept my rating going up is by consistently outperforming my rating tournament after tournament, game after game. This makes me think about the meaning of chess improvement.

I've tried through my experience to gain almost exclusively practical knowledge. Knowledge that would help me win games. Not knowledge that enhances my appreciation for the game, but knowledge that in my hands would be deadly. I aim only to create at the board. To find outlandish continuations that must be checked and rechecked but cannot be resolved without actually entering into them. And this is where we fight. On the edge of a cliff.

I've never played a master before. Tomorrow I will very likely encounter one. Or the next day. The first time that I can remember playing an expert was when I played David Ryba in the Hot August Knights tournaments at Jerry Weikel's house when I was 16. I beat him with a 4 or 5 move combination that I just happened to spot, I was so happy. Then Jerry crushed me the next round. I wonder if I can find those games. Ever since that day I was never afraid to play with an expert, cause I figured I could keep up.

From all the dropped pieces, missed mates, lost endings, failed openings I began to catch on at some point, and I realized other players must be making the same mistakes. Now at a higher level for some reason I started to forget that. I started thinking about how I used to look up to these players as where I should be and now I'm here and I'm scared.

But I think that's good. A lot of times when I think that a player does not have a good chance of beating me I get cocky. I make mistakes. I get careless. If your rating is over 2200 I am going to be SHARP. I am going to play hard, block the world out, just like I did 6 years ago against Ryba when he was 600 points my senior. Now there are only a couple players at the tournament that are that much better than me.

I very rarely find a way to put my best game on display but when I do I play very strong chess. I've been beating experts for long enough. I want to win this tournament 2000-2199 and I want some master scalps.

I Ain't Afraid of No Ghosts

2008-03-17T18:34:00.000-07:00

This is the game that put me over 2000 for the first (and hopefully last) time. My Slav has been getting beaten up online and I was starting to feel uncomfortable in a lot of the positions. I decided during the day of this game to go back to my old move order and build a solid understanding of the theory surrounding the [Shoemaker's quotes] "pawn wedge" system (it's from the Kaufman book Chess Advantage in Black and White). I had been favoring the Slav because I didn't want to face the 'scary' Marshall Gambit. But I don't like the non-Semi Slavs, and by holding back the c pawn I retain the option of playing c5 and transposing into a Tarrasch Defense against certain lines.

The last time I decided to play this move order I dropped my queen. That was a bad experience. But after the game when I was looking at the Marshall I decided that it is definitely playable for Black. So I wasn't too disappointed to see Shoemaker offer it. I was even excited when he offered the exchange and another pawn to commit to an all out offensive. To draw Shoemaker into a gunslinging tactical battle is exactly what I wanted. There are many boring positional games that he could have chosen where I would be more prone to err. The game he chose was practically suicidal.

I went back to the Chess Publisher format at Chessaholic's request.

After the game Chris Harrington called me lucky, Shoemaker says he lost a won game. I've talked on this blog a lot about how the evaluation of the position is not necessarily the most important factor of the position. How both players will make mistakes and this is what's important. I spend a lot of the time trying to get to the bottom of things once the game is done. But during the game the 'truth' is of little importance. We both missed chances to win. We both made mistakes. Luck had nothing to do with it.

It's Official! I'm an Expert!!

2008-03-14T09:50:00.000-07:00

I broke the 2000 barrier last night!! In a wild game against Eric Shoemaker I made a horrible blunder and was in danger of falling behind in the game, but luckily Shoemaker blundered back and I won the "Club Championship Warmup" aka Pointless Tournament, with a perfect score of 3/3. It was essentially a RR between George Fischer, Nathaniel Garingo, Shoemaker, and I.

My rating should be 2005. Fucking sweet.

Update: 2020 on the May supplement.

Experimentation

2008-03-07T11:16:00.000-08:00

I have wanted to attempt to play the Najdorf as Black for some time. Watching Morelia-Linares has just added to my appreciation for this deep and complex opening. Recently I have started throwing it out in some blitz games, even at the club revealing parts of my preparation. It's fun, no doubt about that. Last night I went to Borders before the club because Chris Harrington and Nate Garingo often are there before they go to the club and I wanted to hang out for a bit. So Garingo and I end up playing blitz and I was playing the Najdorf every opportunity with Black, he was playing the English Attack (6.Be3) and I was getting good positions. But I knew from his games with Fischer that he plays 6.f4. Anyways Garingo and I were slated to play at the club and I was getting Black. I had considered looking over some analysis in the Najdorf before going to the club but I had decided to play my Accelerated Dragon instead. At the board, around move 2, I changed my mind and played d6....

So this is where we start. Before I get into the game, I think this is a good time to talk about Nate Garingo. I moved back to Reno in mid-July and immediately started attending the Reno Chess Club every Thursday, Garingo showed up at the club the same Thursday to play his first game at our club. He was sporting a 2170 provisional rating and he played my kind of chess. Attacking chess, a strong knowledge of theory, highly tactical, basically just pure excitement on the board. Anyways so we rattle off three straight wins in three straight weeks and then we were due to face each other for the first time. I had Black (the game last night is the fourth time I have had Black in a rated game against him, I have had White once). I played some very provocative moves but actually found a pretty equal position where things were going to settle down. At this point he decided to sacrifice a piece, it didn't look so bad and I was a little intimidated (I definitely have to post this game soon). Anyways I put up a very stubborn defense and won the game. Our next game, I was Black again and he crushed me in the Maroczy, this game is in the Reno Chess Archives but I will probably also publish this eventually. I think we definitely have a lot in common and we play with a similar style, so there is a mutual respect. I had to earn it by winning the next two games, but nonetheless. We also consistently show up and demonstrate a love for the game that it seems like some of the other strong players in the area are lacking due to their absence. Anyways, coming into this game I was 3-1 against him in rated games and had also swindled an exhibition game so I was expecting a tough bout.

Now let's talk about the game. The moves so far were:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6!?

I don't think I've ever played this d6 before in a rated game. Maybe when I was much younger. I picked up the book Accelerated Dragons at the Western States when I was 13 or 14 and I have played this opening ever since (It starts 2...Nc6, more information here). Every opportunity, sometimes 3 times in one tournament, this opening is my bread and butter. Recently my results in this opening have been only so-so however, so I changed my approach and I wanted to play the new line, but I'm saving it for the Club Championship. So then I was thinking maybe just go into the Maroczy and play my little heart out but this seemed like such a waste. This tournament is completely pointless (there are only 4 players) and he is rated above me so nothing to lose right? So I played this move and I could tell it caught him off guard a bit.

He looked at this position for a few minutes, as if he was going to reject my challenge and go into some Anti-Sicilian, so I got up and walked around and then we fired off the next few moves.

3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3

Black has five very popular options here: 5...Nc6 is the Classical Sicilian, 5...e6 is the Scheveningen, 5...e5 is the Sveshnikov, 5...g6 is the Dragon, and 5...a6 is the Najdorf. I feigned at the g pawn (the dragon is Garingo's opening) just to see how he would react. Then I grabbed the a pawn and hoped for the best.

5...a6 6.f4

6.f4 is a sideline, but it still packs a punch. Garingo has been having no problem against Fischer's Najdorf with this line although Fischer plays 6...g6 at this point which seemed to me to be inconsistent. I wanted to discuss a different topic and see how Garingo handled himself. At this point Black's most common moves are 6...e6 and 6...e5 and I had looked at them both about a month ago when I was thinking about taking this up against Garingo specifically. If Black plays 6...e6 then White can immediately play 7.a4 and prevent 7...b5. Then the b pawn should go to b6 and Black gets a hedgehog formation. This is absolutely playable for Black but I wanted to keep things in the style of the pure Najdorf so I chose the other option.

6...e5 7.Nf3 Qc7 8.Bd3 Be6?!

I think I misplaced the bishop here. Because White has left out a4 I could play b5 intending Bb7 here and I think this is the way to play. I have been so used to seeing the English attack with the pawn on f3 when the Bishop goes to e6. But with the pawn on f4 the e4 pawn is already feeling weak, and the Bishop on b7 puts additional pressure on the weakness.

9.0-0 Nbd7 10.a4 Be7 11.Kh1 0-0 12.Qe1

This position has actually been played some 20 times in my database. Black has for the most part stuck to the plan of Re8 with Bf8, something I was only able to spot after it was provoked by White's next move. I was a little lost here, I didn't really have any good ideas. I noticed earlier that I could play Bc4 if White tried to trap the Bishop with f5, and I started thinking maybe of plans with b5 so I played:

12...Bc4 which has been played one time in my database quite unsuccessfully.

One of the ideas here was something like ...b5 ab ab Nb5 Bb5 Bb5 Qc2 keeping material level and adding pressure from the queen on e4, it is a very strong idea in case of a move like Be3. Of course White doesn't have to capture the pawn on b5 in this case but I thought b5 was important. Also maybe trading on d3 and f4 and bringing a knight to c5 or e5 (or both) and putting pressure on the weak pawn. Then I started to realize that the d3 pawn could go to d4 and this would be bad. So really this move was pretty pointless as you will see. Nathaniel was up to the task.

13.Nh4!

Exploiting my Bishop's absence from e6, the knight heads to f5, I must regroup to maintain the dark squared Bishop, a key defensive piece.

13...Rfe8 14.Nf5 Bf8

So White has succeeded in getting his knight to f5 and now must decide how to increase the pressure.

15.Rf3?

White makes it clear that his intention is to attack on the h file. This is a little bit intimidating, he's going for Rh3, Qh4 and then opening the center and mate. But this move is slow, Fritz gives a few alternatives that may promise White a slight pull into the late middlegame.

For instance 15.fe. I almost certainly would have taken back with the knight, which is the worse option. This would allow White to exert pressure on the center of the board and build up a lot of strength. In any case it is not as if there is one crushing move here for White. He must continue to build and a mistake from either side will drastically change the evaluation.

15...Be6!?=

I was very happy with this move. I was looking at a few options, there are other good options too, but I think that this is my favorite. Simply retreating the Bishop from it's failed expedition and threatening to exchange White's pieces on the kingside, which would weaken the attack. It's just such an awkward move, you wouldn't think that Black is achieving equality with this move, it looks like he is getting desperate. Looks can be deceiving and Garingo lets down his guard.

16.Ne3?

This move is intimidating, but weak and I sniffed out a response that solves all my opening problems and probably leaves me with a slight pull. Again 16.fe or 16.Qh4 are consistent. What Black needs to see to solve this position is that with the knight on e3, White is unable to recapture on f4 with the bishop, I had been waiting to initiate this exchange and now is the time:

16...ef! 17.Rf4 d5!

And d5 comes with tempo on the rook, this just couldn't be wrong! I felt very good about my position until:

18.Qh4!

I overlooked this response, I thought White had to address the threat of d4 winning a piece but Nd5 attacking the queen allows White to continue without losing a piece and he may even be better after the move d4. So now I had to come up with something...

18...Qe5!?

This is an interesting move to say the least. The tactics in this position are a little bit ridiculous. The Bishop on d3 that I didn't trade is menacingly looking down on the h7 pawn now that the e pawn is free to roam. This is what caused me to reject 18...dxe4!, which turns out to be safe after 19.Ne4 Ne4 20.Be4 h6. h6 is such a simple move, but it was hard to see in the midst of all the complications, also I felt like this was the kind of position that he wanted, the attack goes on.

After Qh4 I sunk into a deep think and decided that the most important feature of the position was that the Q and R were vulnerable on their squares, if for instance I could get a knight to g6 this would be strong, but Ne5-g6 doesn't accomplish anything since after 18...Ne5 19.ed Ng6 White just wins a piece by 20.Bg6 and 21.de6.

But there's another way to fork these pieces, albeit ugly and awkward, g5! So Qe5 threatens g5 when Black will beat back the White pieces and also removing the Queen from c7 threatens d4 which would win a piece. So there are two threats, this is always good right?

19.exd5 g5!

It worked!! There is a good alternative for White that does not allow this. 19.Nf5, returning the knight to f5 was suggested by Nathaniel immediately after the game and leads to a very double-edged game with chances for both sides. This move addresses both threats, it removes the knight from the fork and blocks the queen from defense of g5.

Here's an interesting line: 19.Nf5 de 20.Ne4 Ne4 21.Re4 Qf6! I suggested this as the way to play for Black and it equalizes but the game remains wild: 22.Bg5! Qb2 with chances for both sides, here's how it looks:

Back to the game:

20.Ng4?? This move loses on the spot.

White still had a way to keep himself in the game. Nathaniel, like me, is the kind of player who feels the advantage and at the point where he realizes he may not be in control he panics and oftentimes this is where he makes his weakest moves. If you have seen our last two games (here and here) there is additional support for this statement. So the way to stay in the game is:

20.Nc4! Qf4 21.Bf4 gh 22.de fe when Black is up the exchange, but there is still a chess game to play:

20...Bg4 21.Qg3 forced, if White takes the Bishop he gets mated on e1. 21...gf 22.Bf4 Qh5 23.h3 Kh8 0-1

I step out of the pin and save the bishop, leaving me up a rook and a knight for two pawns, White resigns.

So now I have two systems against e4, although they are both Sicilians. I don't think I'll play the Najdorf at the Far West Open in two weeks but you never know. I certainly had a good showing in this game.

By the way let me know what you think of the format, I'm just so tired of the little chesspublisher window.

Speaking Up For Those Who Can't

2008-03-06T14:13:00.000-08:00

Recently wang berated chess engines and databases. So I'm going to go ahead and play Devil's Advocate. First of all because I am a former debater and future lawyer and I love writing arguments. Secondly because I am someone who uses chess engines and databases very frequently and I believe they are very valuable to a chess player when used responsibly. So I feel it is my duty to defend these helpless machines...

I'm going to take a very structured approach to supporting the opposing side so it would probably be helpful to familiarize yourself with wang's post before continuing.

To give you a road map I'm going to start by answering wang's points on learning openings, then I'm going to move on to his points on game analysis.

1. This has nothing to do with computers. I am currently looking at a 280 page book on the Sicilian Sozin (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 is the start then White plays 6.Bc4 against either 5...a6 or 5...Nc6). I am reading this book with a board, no computer, just going through it. It's still the same thing, copious diagrams and annotations and GM games and evaluations at the end of lines.

2. Turn: Computers actually make the learning process easier in the opening. The process of learning an opening is discussed in many sources but the overwhelming opinion is that the best way to learn an opening is to familiarize yourself with as many games in that opening as possible and then to play 'training' games where you practice the ideas you learned in friendly competition. I have many databases that start from a position and contain roughly 30-50 games from that position and by going through them I learn where to put my pieces, typical attacks and defenses, typical pawn structures, typical endgames, these things come in handy when you are ready to actually try the line out because you know what you are looking at. As far as the practicing component, this is something I usually do in blitz games on ICC, but a lot of people use chess engines for this component showing that the database engine tandem can be very helpful in learning openings.

I have been where you are, overwhelmed by GM evaluations and not understanding where they get their notations from or why they choose specific lines, but by familiarizing yourself with the games and ideas in a particular variation you will start to see why certain evaluations are given and why the GM takes things for granted. Whether you use a computer or a book and a board you still need to put in the time.

On to game analysis:

I concede the point that allowing Fritz to annotate your game without attempting to annotate it yourself is a lost cause and a waste of time, but allow me to salvage some dignity for the machine.

1. Fritz is a BRILLIANT resource. It can and will find ideas that you overlooked in your game, every game for that matter. The fact that you are not able to play certain variations because they are too hard does not mean that you should not familiarize yourself with the ideas of those variations. If it is a tournament game and you spent 4-5 hours thinking about the position, you should be familiar with the nuances in the game and Fritz will show you how they get exploited.

2. Just because you could mess up a position is not a reason to reject the evaluation. We all make mistakes. The evaluation of the game inevitably fluctuates during a game. However, the goal should be to achieve positions that are easier for you and more difficult for your opponent. If you are winning, you have to do less to win than your opponent, that's the definition of a +/=. They are not instant wins, your opponent may even be able to hold on with 20 moves of Fritz play, but you have an easier game.

3. Fritz helps. In the commentary to your post BDK mentions that he is tired of seeing 'Fritz says' in the analysis to a game. I include this line constantly in my analysis so let me explain why. First of all, I do not want to take credit for the ideas that Fritz comes up with, so that's the only reason it is included. I include these ideas because they are important to the understanding of the overall game. I don't add all the lines Fritz spits out or irrelevant moves just because Fritz says it's better. I add lines that COMPLEMENT my analysis. A lot of times there are variations that I avoided or my opponent avoided that are too complex for me to solve on my own. But Fritz can help give me some guidance and 'together', 'we' can work it out. I'll give it a line that it didn't 'see' and after going through some of the variations it will fill in the gaps and confirm my feeling about the position. And sometimes it will give me lines I don't see and help me reject continuations that I found promising. If Fritz hasn't found a one pawn blunder in your games in 6 months you are simply not giving it enough time.

4. It all comes down to work. After Fritz spits out moves I try to put it's ideas into words. You will often see long explanations of positions in my analysis. This is me taking Fritz's += or =+ and trying to give an explanation of the key elements of the position. Working to understand why the computer feels the way it does about this position. Attempting to further my chess understanding by using Fritz as a guide. And if I disagree with Fritz, I have the opportunity to prove it by following it's analysis and offering my own suggestions, which either exposes where I am flawed in my thinking, or exposes that Fritz overestimated or underestimated certain elements of the position. If I had a top-level GM that would sit with me and go through games and give me lines and analysis I would use him the same way, but I think it would cost a lot more.

I'll conclude this point by saying that I recently hired a coach and he asked for a sample of my games so I sent him my ChessBase database where I created the games before they get put into Chess Publisher. I gave him all my analysis. He said "You analyze games like a GM."

So although I understand your frustration with people's reliance on computers, it seems to stem from people who use computers as a shortcut. There are no shortcuts to learning, you must put in the work to see results. And all I can say is that computers allow you not only to keep your work organized, but also to check your work. This is helpful indeed.

Careless and Sloppy

2008-03-01T16:14:00.000-08:00

I didn't play last week cause I wasn't really feeling well and there were only three people that weren't participating in the other tournament. Then Thursday I got paired with George Fischer again. With the White pieces, again. The same pairing I had two weeks ago. I wanted to play a nice game, really find a rhythm and some good moves. That didn't happen. I played ok and I found some strong ideas, but I made a lot of mistakes. My execution was extremely poor. Probably due to the fact that I was not putting that much effort into the game. I spent 30 minutes on the first 30 moves (the time control is 30/90 G/1); then 20 minutes on the rest of the game, although that phase was routine. George got into his regular time trouble and made time with 6 seconds on his clock. Then used almost all of his remaining hour in a position that was absolutely hopeless.

I hardly deserved to win that game. I play better than that. Rocky's post on flow a little while ago I think best explains the phenomenon that is my chess. When my opponent is pushing me and I have to keep finding good moves to win I am able to find my zone and get it done, but when my opponent is making mistakes I get lazy and I cannot focus enough attention on the matter at hand. It's like when a sports team starts running away with the game and then gets lazy. I just assume the mistakes are going to keep coming and that this is going to be extremely easy. I have an attitude problem.

I also got really annoyed at the fact that he kept playing after I started pushing the queenside pawns. I can understand him playing until I start making progress on the queenside but once I have consolidated my position and I am starting to roll forward there's no hope for Black. And he just sat there spending so much time, I wasn't even at the board, I would come back make a move and go back to watching other games. I actually strongly considered blindfolding myself just to make it interesting, I wonder if Ernie would have allowed that.

On the topic of blindfolding myself, I was thinking maybe if I try to find a move without looking at the board and then look at the board for a stronger idea I might be able to slow down and put more effort into my moves. I think this also relates to my last post. More to come.

Lateral Thinking

2008-02-26T09:58:00.000-08:00

This blog has been focused on games lately, so I decided to bring some abstract thought to the table. Last night I was watching Bloomberg and I don't know who the interviewer was but he had Edward de Bono on the show. I had never heard of him. I have heard the term lateral thinking before but I did not know that it was a rather modern term and I certainly did not know that he invented the term. He was talking about the topic of thinking (a topic of some importance to me as an ambitious chess player) and he suggests that thinking should be taught as a subject in school. He stated that American society is too focused on memorization and that we are not taught how to think. Also we rely too much on information without really looking at different ways to interpret information. Stumbling upon this interview gave me a lot to think about last night.

Lateral thinking simply suggests that we approach situations with an open mind, from different perspectives. This is something extremely important at the chess board. De Bono says that we are too focused on critical thinking and problem solving, which is only a small part of thinking. This method has served us well since the Renaissance Era however it has limited us by teaching us complacency. When a situation appears good, we are unable to apply our normal technique of thinking to the situation because there is no unique solution. There is no clear path forward. If you have been following this blog, you know that I can draw parallels between pretty much anything and chess. Here I was instantly drawn to a wide range of positions where I feel comfortable but I do not know how to progress. How to make a good situation better. He talks about the fact that we are so concerned with problems: global warming, recession, etc., but that we do not address these in the right way. We do not necessarily need to solve these 'problems', we need to find and execute good ideas. We need to create new approaches.

Here's a quote from last night: "In a Tennis tournament there is one winner. There is one final game, two semi-final games, four quarter-final games, and so on. If there are 67 participants, how many games does it take to produce a winner?"

He gives this example in numerous seminars all over the place and then he waits a few seconds maybe answering peripheral questions and then in less time than it took you to read this sentence he says: "You should have the answer by now."

Wait for it...

No one ever has the answer. The answer is 66 games. There is one winner, so 66 losers. One loss eliminates you from the tournament: 66 games. "You just have to change your starting point."

I could not help thinking how much time I have wasted trying to make a combination work when all I had to do was change the first move. And still coming up with the wrong answer just because I was trying to force a solution. I really don't spend enough time employing this method of thought at the board.

Another central tenet of his method of thought, which by the way is legally required to be learned in school in many countries (such as Venezuela), is the notion of provocative operation. This is something that I do employ quite frequently. I like looking at all (reasonable) material exchanges available in a position. It opens me up to some of the less obvious maneuvers that are present in the position. My mistake however, is ruling some out too soon. Chopping off lines as if I were a computer trying to solve the position by brute force. It seems to me perhaps looking at a completely lost position for a little bit may be useful. Not trying to justify an unsound sacrifice, but rather allowing ideas to come out of this sacrifice that may be good in other lines. Nuances of the position that would otherwise remain hidden.

At many points in a game the path is not clear. Problems cannot be removed or directly addressed and play must continue in spite of these problems. In these situations it is necessary to open up to all the ideas in the position and then find a path that makes the most sense. Sometimes unconventional solutions are actually the best approach to a position, anyone who is familiar with the works of John Watson on Chess Strategy should be quite aware of this. Lateral thinking may be the best way to find these unconventional solutions.

Reno Class A Champion!

2008-02-22T10:08:00.000-08:00

Not a bad start to 2008 as I have accomplished something I have never accomplished before. For the first 8 months of the year, our club is first focused on the class championships, and then the club championship. For the last 4 years I have not been able to participate in these tournaments because I was living in Chicago, and then in Vegas. So this year I am excited that I am finally able to participate in both these events, it is something I looked forward to for a long time. The last time I played the Class Championships I was 17, and I had to play B because my rating was 1601. It took me 3 years after that tournament to keep my rating over 1600. Needless to say I didn't really belong in that class and I scored very poorly. The situation for this tournament was very different. This time I was the top seed. But I still managed to win rather unconvincingly, David Peterson surprised everyone with a very strong performance scoring 4/5 in the first 5 rounds but lost last night which meant that my 4.5/6 was good enough to win the tournament.

I posted every game but for easy reference:

Round 1: W vs Barry Brandt
Round 2: D vs David Peterson
Round 3: W vs Grant Fleming
Round 4: W vs Eric Shoemaker
Round 5: L vs Edwin Simanis
Round 6: W vs George Fischer

Silly Fischer

2008-02-20T00:01:00.000-08:00

I have played a man named Fischer in over twice as many rated games as anyone else. I had a losing score until winning 4 of our last 5 (including winning Thursday night) to level it at 5 wins, 1 draw, and 5 losses. Considering when we started playing each other my rating was somewhere in the 1300 range I don't think I fared too badly. He used to always tell me that if I just slowed down I would be a really good player. This was of course really annoying. But I didn't really have to slow down to beat him, after all I only spent 20 minutes on the following game. After the game he told me as he always does "See, you can play better than me."

UPDATE: I forgot to include something about this line. This is the Najdorf with 6.Bg5, which has pretty much been replaced with 6.Be3, but the day after this game was played Shirov played 6.Bg5 against Anand. I watched the game live and it was very entertaining. Check it out: Shirov-Anand, Morelia 2008

I was going to post a bunch of other games that we played but I'm lazy. There are some good ones though, maybe one day. I was also going to rant about how you shouldn't play the Najdorf if you don't know anything about it, but that's pointless.

Right now I'm just waiting for the result of the Shoemaker-Peterson game, which determines whether I win the Class Championship or not after that unfortunate slip against Simanis.

What Just Happened?

2008-02-14T00:01:00.000-08:00

Last night Edwin Simanis and I played our make up game from last Thursday. He was in last place in this tournament and I was leading comfortably. I did not expect to have any problem in the game and he ended up giving me a piece for two pawns in 10 moves. And I was Black! But then something very strange happened...

The position after White's 15th move is where everything suddenly went astray. I spent over half an hour on my 15th move (I usually have plenty of time). The two lines I was trying to decide between were 15...Qh5 and 15...Bd6 but my analysis of 15...Bd6 was focused on 16.e4 since I believed (still believe) this to be the best move. Then he played 16.f4 and I was so focused on these suffocating attacking positions that I foolishly continued to attack.

Then for the next 10 moves or so I still thought I was easily winning and firmly in control. I did not give Ed enough credit. He hung tough and came up with some strong ideas. Then when I finally realize I'm losing I have to come up with drastic measures and to add to this catastrophe I was low on time. Being in time pressure is a very unfamiliar feeling for me at the chessboard and I reacted very poorly. I never fully recovered from the fact that I had actually lost the initiative. I just kept playing as if I had the initiative when I didn't.

When this game was finally over (I did manage to keep it tense for a while) it was by far the worst feeling I have felt in a long time. How did I blow a game where my opponent gave me a piece on move 10??! Going 0-4 in LA cannot even come close to comparing how I felt after this game. I played like shit.

It's ok though, tomorrow's another day and another game. One great thing about chess is that no matter how bad you fuck up, the next game you still get to start at the same position.

Some Old Analysis

2008-02-11T21:00:00.000-08:00

I'm probably going to play a match with Shoemaker in the coming weeks. The last time I got challenged to a match was against Garingo a couple months ago. I have the full game here, but I left the opening analysis out because I figured he would repeat the line. Then we played three weeks later and he played the French. But he continues to play the Dragon at the club so I still left some gems out of this post from the games I have seen. While I was writing this it occurred to me that enough people from our club read this that this analysis will probably be used in some form against Garingo in other games, which will be fun to watch.

Recently the topic of Black's ninth move against the 9.0-0-0 Dragon came up on Shoemaker's blog. The two main options are 9...Nxd4 see my games against Shoemaker and Yee and 9...d5 see my game against Peake and the ensuing post (the latter is considered by theorists to be objectively better), and then there is this move 9...Bd7, which has pretty much left Black with very difficult positions in practical play. Most commentators think this move is weak.

Up and comer Chris Harrington (who has established himself as at least a very good C player in only a year of tournament play!) noted that Garingo plays 9...Bd7 and was trained by a very strong player and this is where he learned the Dragon so it must be ok. I figured the best way to answer this was to publish some homework I did before and after the following game.

I knew he played the 9...Bd7 line from blitz games and I had fallen to the rook sac (see the game) on more than one occasion. So I had expanded my knowledge of the line and I felt ready for tournament play against him. I had just lost to Parreira inexplicably and Garingo had just drawn Filipas (both rated 500 points lower than us!!) and it was still pretty early in the night so we played this game.

For those of you wondering why I am so freely publishing all of this theory on the Dragon, it is because:

a)Every line that I publish is winning for White (or at least slightly better), I hold back some select lines that are less clear.

b)I consider most of the lines I publish to be entry-level theory, most of the games and positions I reference should probably be viewed (glanced at even) before entering these positions on either side of this debate.

The Dragon takes a lot of work at home; and the games are still very intense. The reward is edge of your seat action. Mind-blowing combinations and mates giving endless CT-Art problems for both sides that must be navigated with care and consideration. You can find many examples of top grandmasters slipping in these positions and getting the guillotine so how hard could it be to beat someone that is your own strength??

Back to Basics

2008-02-10T15:18:00.000-08:00

I am a huge hockey fan. I was born in Toronto and the Leafs have been my team forever. They have missed the playoffs for 2 years in a row and they were in last place all set to miss the playoffs again this year but they seem to have turned themselves around a little bit and they just got their star defenceman back who missed over 20 games with a broken wrist. When you look at the fact that they're only a couple points out of 10th in the division and they have 4 games left against each of the 8th and 9th place teams (8 teams make the playoffs), they could easily make a run for the 8 spot if they are able to get their act together.

Anyways a couple quotes that made me think of chess from some commentary I was reading:

That said he often recognizes a tendency for players, once they have a taste of the league, to stop doing the tasks they eagerly performed once inserted into the lineup. The problem, [Leafs Coach Paul] Maurice said, is the players figure they have the basics mastered and decide to dramatically expand their repertoire. But the tolerance for errors is radically higher for established players.

“There are players you can see, they’ve had their two or three weeks and they’re starting to turn the puck over and they are not able to sustain it. For some guys, you start to see a bit of a slip.” [Maurice]

“This is something that each player in this locker room, each player in the league, has dreamt about since they were very young,” [Rookie Robbie Earl, who was called up to the NHL last Saturday] said. “I don’t think it’s ever a chore. It becomes a grind and hard work, but I don’t see it ever becoming a chore.”

Quarterbackin'

2008-02-07T02:00:00.000-08:00

Having the initiative is like having the ball in football. You get to call the shots, your opponent just sets up and tries to stop you. As long as you are making reasonable progress you get to keep the ball, unless you make a mistake and allow a turnover. But how can you tell whether to throw for the endzone or give it to your fullback for a few yards up the middle?

Obviously the coaching staff are the ones who are creating the overall structure and making the calls. The better they can read the situation the better chance they have to be able to score touchdowns on offense and force turnovers on defense. But the really exciting moments in chess and in football are when one side attempts to cash in on their advantage. Last Sunday as Eli was driving down the field he just kept doing the right things. He was just determined to score. And that's always exciting. Same as in chess when you watch an initiative begin to manifest itself and it just gets stronger and stronger and one side is forced to just wait and play very precise chess hoping to get it back. But then when they're against the goal line weird things happen.

I was thinking about some blitz games I had just played, which were all pretty crazy as I was pretty much just throwing pieces around looking for a winning tactic. Like this game:

He let me have a very pretty finish, but that game was just crazy. That game had a longer time control than the earlier ones that I was playing so it let me come up with some lines that are tough to deal with.

So I was thinking about these crazy positions where nothing makes sense because I have been reading Watson again and his focus is on the fact that there are no concrete rules, everything should be judged on a case by case basis. At this point in my experience it is pretty clear that the initiative is almost always the deciding factor in a game. Whoever has it basically gets to move over and over until there is a position where they can cash in. The best way to stop the initiative before you end up in your territory is to make a sacrifice of some sort and take it. The coaching staff may be able to keep the sacrifices from being big early in the game but towards the end they are forced to take more risks if they want to see a decisive result. And it is at the end when both teams are more prone to mistakes. So the question becomes what to give up for the initiative. What is too much? What is too little? Kasparov really liked to give pawns to gain the initiative and often times he would continue to give pawns in order to maintain the initiative. But if your opponent is up a touchdown, then he can always let you score because he will get the ball back in an even game. So you have to be able to score big. This is where the football analogy gets a little distant. In chess if you are able to trap the king you win, or usually get a huge material payoff. But how much are you willing to risk to actually achieve that goal? We see players like Morozevich take so many risks and then there are players like Kramnik who will only very rarely lose. I think it was Petrosian who once said something to the effect of 'to beat me five times would take six months' in response to a match that was a race to five wins. If you are willing to risk a losing endgame you must be able to restore the balance during the time which you have the initiative. If you do not risk enough, say just doubled pawns, then there is a chance your opponent maintains the tension and does not accept your offer. So the challenge is to find the right amount to give away that your opponent will accept while you retain good chances. The stronger you are the smaller the range of acceptable offers. Conversely, the shorter the time control the wider the range.

My Achilles Heel

2008-01-30T02:00:00.000-08:00

I get as much pleasure from a clearcut positional win as a win by sacrificial attack. I have an attacking style for sure, but I win many games by positional finesse. My depth in analyzing strategic elements is solid, as is my calculation. I am able to evaluate positions at the end of lines very accurately although this for sure is the most difficult element of chess and I have many shortfalls in this category. My endgame is very strong although it needs to be much stronger if I expect to compete with masters. But there's one thing that costs me more games than any of these elements...

I used to call it haste or impatience, thinking that if I took my time I could overcome the blunders I made. Then I called it laziness, saying that I didn't work enough off the board and I didn't expend the necessary energy at the board. More recently I have called it boredom, because there are certain positions where I will not take interest and certain positions which I will produce very strong moves. But today I call it carelessness. I just find strong plans, I don't put the necessary effort into ensuring that the execution is sound. I don't care. I just figure it out along the way, even though I could easily check it and play another strong move if I tried. I have had this problem in school too. Once I know I can earn an A I don't really care whether I get it or not. That's led to a lot of B's that could have been easily avoided. Just like my carelessness at the board leads to losses. Losses, not draws, cause like I say I don't really care. If I think the game's going to be close and I'm going to have to work hard I might as well work hard trying to produce some sacrifice. This also helps me in my future games because I have real tournament experience in wild materially unbalanced games under my belt. But it hurts me because I don't remember how to win with even material (this is an exaggeration). And like I said I don't really care if I win or lose. But that's not true, I love to win tournaments, but just tournaments, not games. Don't get me wrong there are some games that are extremely satisfying to win and like I said I have won many games by a positional slight of hand. But usually I am only concerned with the first struggle, the first long tension, and if I win that I feel pretty good. Like I said I have been focused on that first transition for a long time and it's paid off. But there is another transition, and carelessness in this phase is the same thing I rely on if I lose the first transition. I get more determined and much more careful as soon as I have made a mistake. So why can I not achieve the same caution and care when my opponent starts to slip? Why do I assume they will make another mistake before I do? Am I really that arrogant during my evaluation of the position?

What I Learned in January

2008-01-29T09:27:00.000-08:00

I played 8 rated games this month against opponents with an average rating of 1944. I scored 3 wins, 4 losses, and a draw for a performance around 1900. Even though my rating is only 1950, I'm very unhappy with my performance this month, I should have made expert in LA. Taking performance on a month to month basis is pretty useless, but I actually learned a surprising amount from these games. I think playing more tournament games will help me improve considerably.

My endgame is weak to say the least, it needs to be my primary focus. I'm putting too much weight in my openings. Looking at my games I either gain a decisive advantage in the first 25 moves or I lose in about 50 moves (or in the case of my first round game in LA, BOTH). So at least my work on the opening and that first transition to the middlegame has paid handsome rewards. But I am finally getting outplayed in the endgame. When I was playing the C section I used to reach drawn endgames all the time and just convert them easily. This was also a theme of my dominance of the A Class at the Western States. But in expert things change, the mistakes are more subtle.

This new class is teaching me a lot very quickly. Chances are both players see most if not all of the tactical possibilities, which remain largely in the background. This is a sharp contrast to the lower classes where a missed tactic often decides the game. In this class tactics are used instead to alter the character of the position. But the effect of these tactics on the evaluation of the game often remains unclear.

This makes sense to me because rather than missing a strong tactic, stronger players allow tactics. No one will allow a change in the position that is obviously unfavorable so it comes down to either forcing an unfavorable change, or tricking an opponent into allowing an unfavorable change. The latter being through a positional sacrifice or often times a positional concession (IM Perunovic has been discussing accepting double isolated pawns as a form of strength at his blog). The former is done by punishing an opponent for a strategic blunder and is much more common at the expert level.

I have learned that experts make a lot of mistakes. They're subtle and there is usually no immediate punishment, but if I really seek them out I will find weaknesses. Then it is a matter of strengthening my technique to the point that once I find an advantage I convert it. That's where endgame study comes in. I've been reading Tal every day, just a couple games to get me warmed up, and in almost every game he discusses that from a certain point it is simply a matter of demonstrating his technique. At the beginning of the game he will make the position a little murky, of course usually launch a direct attack on the king, and then he just waits for his opponent to slip. Once his opponent slips it is over, Tal will never return the favor. But it is his strength in the endgame that is the complement to his ferocious attacks.

From playing players that are under 2000 I have gotten so used to seeing multiple mistakes. This is how the game usually goes: my opponent makes a mistake in the opening and I get a lot of pressure, then my opponent makes another mistake and succumbs to the pressure giving me an easy win. This is why my wins are averaging about 30 moves. If you look at the post below in the third game against Shoemaker you will see how this can hurt me. I got a lot of pressure and then I just waited because (I guess subconciously) I assumed he would make another mistake. And then I slip and let off some of the pressure and all of a sudden I am required to be extremely precise once again. I have been playing as if it is only required for me to be precise until I gain an advantage. This is not the case against stronger players, your play must be precise throughout. Gaining an advantage is only half the battle. Precision is the name of the game.

Triple Play

2008-01-26T15:00:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I had a slow day at work so I was able to annotate my other two games from the Western Class and my game from Thursday. They're all after the break...

Game 1

This is the game from the first round of the Western Class. He played the Pirc, which I love playing against, it's hard for Black to equalize. I get a winning attack and blow it returning the game to equality. We both make a lot of mistakes but I honestly have no losing chances until I blow a chance to win my opponent's queen and then blunder in the endgame. I played well overall but I made some silly mistakes.

This was a very disappointing loss but I learned from this game and the next game that it is not like they are seeing a lot more than me, I am outplaying myself.

Game 2

This is the game from the third round of the Western Class, it actually features the same opening as the game below from Shoemaker. For some reason I was afraid to play a normal kingside attack against this kid (turns out he's the 11th best 13 year old in the nation, but he looks older). I ended up just defending which is not my style at all and even though I kept it even for a long time I end up in a bad endgame which he handled very well.

Again a tough loss, but I learned from it and played a different strategy when Eric Shoemaker decided to abandon his regular 1...e5 in favor of the Dragon in our first game (although there will certainly be many more I'm pretty confident he will never play this opening again).

Game 3

The Class A Championship has been interesting to say the least, one player dropped out so now everybody has to take a bye. Eric had his bye already, so he was one point behind me, but if I had lost he would have a chance to take the lead next week during my bye week. I managed to win on time (only the third time this has happened in my experience) in what is probably a won endgame, but there was a lot of work to do. I should have probably won well before the time control if I had just played like myself, but I was hesitant. The analysis of this game has helped restore my confidence.

No losing chances at all in this game. Although I avoided double-edged lines that were obviously in my favor. I am not happy with this game.

Unfortunately, the tournament in LA set my rating back 30 points, so I may still lose the race to expert yet. However, maybe I needed the set back to get back to studying, I had this weird feeling that my play couldn't get any better over the last few weeks (isn't getting any better from studying may be a better way to put this) but there is obviously a lot of room for improvement. So I'm spending today with a few grandmasters in my room over the board.

Ceiling Chess

2008-01-24T12:54:00.000-08:00

Last night I was reading a post from polly on chess psychology and there was a comment from happyhippo regarding shirov's use of the ceiling in his calculation. I had just read something on it and I forgot where and it was really bugging me (I literally opened 3 or 4 books last night trying to find it). So I googled "Shirov ceiling" and it came back with a bunch of garbage, but I found an interesting article about some controversy that arose between Shirov and Kasparov and came to a head during their game at Corus in 2001 (I just can't ignore coincidences like this, finding a random article about a tournament going on right now). Anyways then I remembered where I read it, funny how little things trigger that, so here it is...

"In the '80's appeared a new generation of chess stars from the Soviet Union who created quite a splash, not so much because they were such fantastic players, but because of what they did at the chess board: they spent more time looking at the cieling ( or the spectators) than they did at the chessboard.

I remember the first time I played Shirov. It was '90, Paris, and I was paired against this relatively unknown youngster from Latvia. I played my normal game, and was quite astonished when I noticed that he would only look at the board from time to time, and that most of the time he spent staring at the ceiling! I still remember thinking that there was something quite wrong with the fellow! ''I will have no problem with this fellow'' I thought.

But was I amazed by what this guy ''saw''!! I still am impressed.

He was combining the usual 'visual' chess thinking with , what for lack of a better word, 'blindfold' chess thinking, and the results were very impressive. Even to this day he employs this technique.

Other players of his generation who did this also are Ivanchuk, and Gelfand. But it is a mistake to think that these players just 'happened' upon this new technique: it was a technique developed by Soviet trainers looking for a way for the new generation of young players to get an edge on the existing generations.

Today perhaps Anand is the most visible exponent of this 'school'...

There are many things you don't 'see' in chess which you do 'see' when you close your eyes, and of course, the reverse is equally true. I suggest you try some experiments!" -Kevin Spraggett (Here's a link to the post I made when I first read the article).

Easily Tempted

2008-01-23T02:00:00.000-08:00

This is the last game I played before I headed home in disgust. I play the opening with absolutely no ambition, allowing myself to fall very far behind. Then when I realize I am behind I succeed in fighting back only to be tempted into a very poor piece sacrifice. In the position where I sacrifice a piece I probably could have just waited around for a little bit and outplayed my opponent. He was lower rated and he had played rather poorly from the time he gained an advantage. But as I have done so often I force matters immediately and it backfires when I miss a mate and resign out of shame.

If you are wondering what prompted my sudden collapse at the end. I missed the mate after Rxd4. I thought I would be able to play c5 and c6 regaining the piece, but that is obviously flawed since the queen covers h2 and I get mated by Rd1.

This was really not all that surprising to me. After losing the first three games I was in no mood for chess. I was expecting to have a bye cause I was in last place (Sarkia had a half point). So I wasn't even really ready to play. Then I avoid the Marshall for some stupid reason and I just get myself into trouble trying to confuse him rather than playing good moves. At the end I really just wanted to see what would happen, but the sac is bad, I should have seen that. I really couldn't take a draw though, I would have been just as disappointed, so I tried to mix it up. Win or lose.

Oops.

2008-01-21T23:00:00.000-08:00

After my first round game I wanted to go over it cause I was mad that I blew it but I didn't to conserve my energy for the second round. This round was my only game playing Black out of 4. I was paired with Amanda Mateer, who is one of the top rated 17 year old players in the country. Against the Queen's Gambit I used to play the move order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 but I now play a different order to avoid 4.e4. For some weird reason in this game I played my old move order thinking I was protecting myself against weird Slavs that I didn't want to play. I was expecting a main line Semi-Slav (which I would have gotten if I had just played my current move order), but she fired off 4.e4. After the game she said that she had been 0-2 in this line prior to our game and she likes Black's chances but she's been playing it because someone told her to.

Every game except my last game reminds me of another loss I have played recently, so I'll include the other game as well and try to think of one that reminds me of my game in round 4.

This game comes from round 5 of my last 'real' tournament, the Western States Open in October.

11...Nd7 is forced and 12.e5 will win the bishop.

The game with Michael, who was also at the tournament in LA, came after 4 straight wins and had I won that game I would have guaranteed first place. So the pressure might have gotten to me a little bit. But somehow I am prone to these kinds of silly errors. What's funny is that in middlegame positions where little things like this are lurking around I will nearly always sniff out the danger but in the opening I am asleep for some reason. I need to reserve most of my thoughts on this topic for another post because if I start getting into them here it will become a very long discussion. But the long and the short of it is that there are certain positions where I am prone to lose interest and I basically just want the game to move along so that I can get interested in the ensuing positions. These positions are usually where I lose.

I Need to Work Harder

2008-01-21T16:07:00.000-08:00

I succeeded in getting my ass kicked, sort of. I really only got my ass kicked in one game, the rest of the games were very close. The first game I played was a real heartbreaker and I think the fact that I analyzed it before the end of the tournament really hurt me because I lost confidence in myself for missing such an easy win. Some of my classic errors told in this tournament, temporary loss of interest I think is hurting me the most, more about this soon. I went 0-4 and I was already scheduled to take a bye in the last round to drive home and I was afraid I would get a bye in the fifth round so I left last night got back to Reno about 7 this morning. Important thing is I actually learned a lot, also it was nice to get some good chess in, not enough of that in Reno. The drive home really sucked, especially since after two chess games and 6 hours of driving with only about an hour left I hit a snow storm and thankfully my car is all wheel drive so I could go 35-50 through it otherwise it would have taken much longer. Los Angeles is really cool though, land of four lane freeways. I don't know how it is during the week cause I heard traffic there is a bitch but I could easily get around at 80-100 anywhere I went which is cool. Big open freeways. It helped when I needed to think about my losses. I'll post them worst to best over the next week with more info on what I learned. I can't really do any worse in this section, I guess that's good.

It felt like I was back in London

2008-01-18T02:00:00.000-08:00

Tonight I played Grant, who is a good player but has told me that I am getting better faster than he is and that he will probably never catch me. I remembered that he played the London System, and before I brushed up on it I went to the Reno Chess Archives to make sure he was still playing it. Turns out he's been playing e4 and the Bb5 Sicilian, I feel much more vulnerable in this variation than in the London System so I just studied the Rossolimo Variation in preparation for Thursday's game.

When Grant showed up for some reason he decided to go back to d4 and his London System, he admitted after the game he hadn't played it in over a year and a half because he felt it was weak. I agree that it doesn't give White any advantage with accurate play by Black. He played it because he figured I wouldn't know about it, but I actually have looked at this line quite a bit because I've run into it online quite a few times.

Note: The actual game went 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5, immediately after the game I had my computer with me so we threw it in ChessBase to sort some things out and I used the move order below to get to the position in the game...

A nice way to go into this tournament. But I'm still pretty sure I'm going to get my ass kicked. I've been playing really well at the club though and that's a good indicator that it's time to go and learn some lessons the hard way.

The Black House??

2008-01-17T11:48:00.000-08:00

Normally this blog is very chess focused but this one was too good to pass up. Also with all the fun we had yesterday over at LEP's entertaining blog maybe I'll start posting random shit I see as well.

This article is about a joke, I think it's actually kind of funny but I guess the people at the event didn't like it.

Happenings

2008-01-17T09:53:00.000-08:00

I just started snowboarding a month and a half ago. I figure if I have to live in Reno I might as well get into the best thing Reno's got going. I'm getting pretty good, I can pretty much carve down the mountain without falling. Some friends and I have a night pass to a resort about 40 minutes from my house and last night after work we went up there. It's usually pretty icy which makes it much harder and last night it was about 19 degrees at the base with probably 20 mph winds. It was cold. So we only spent about an hour and a half (I know that's how long it takes to get there and back but it's honestly worth it every single time). When I got home I wanted to study but I didn't know what. So I decided to follow the advice I gave to chessloser (I was thinking about him anyway because of how cold it was) and pull out Tal's Life and Games and just flip through it.

I had to do some digging to find it but I did and it was actually really nice to read it again. I haven't read Tal in a long time and his prose is truly unique. It is an inspiring read. The second game I looked at (Novopashin-Tal 1962) was a Sicilian Scheveningen (marked by knight on f6 and pawns on d6 and e6) but White played his Bishop to c4 (the most common approach is the Keres Attack which starts with 6.g4). Tal was Black and said that his opponent had been creating problems for Black in this line and on move 8 he says if he played a6 or Nc6 his opponent would be very well prepared. So he plays 8...Na6 and says this:

"I had to find something out of the book - even if only to gain a psychological advantage."

What other grandmaster (at this point he was former world champion) would say something like this to justify a move in the opening? This was also a game he felt he had to win! It was during the 1962 Russian Chess Championship and he had to play this game in between rounds because he was sick. He felt that if he didn't win the game he would not be close enough to Korchnoi to catch him (not that he ended up catching him, but still). The game from this point on is very instructive. Tal plays a standard d5 break, leading to an isolated pawn. He defends the pawn indirectly by activating his pieces with tactics behind the scenes, initiates a trade on e4 to get the pawn off the d-file, and uses the pressure from the advanced passed e-pawn to build up a winning attack.

This game was very inspiring to me. I have had a relative lull in studying for the last couple weeks and I wasn't exactly feeling confident about the 7 games I have signed myself up to play through Monday. Last Thursday I could barely hold my concentration through one game and Saturday through Monday I have to play 6 back to back. But after I read some Tal I was all fired up. I knew once I got to the tournament and made a few moves I would be comfortable. After all, it's just chess. And I'm playing Expert for the first time. So there's not even any real pressure, it's nothing like when I was playing A at the Western States and I knew I had a chance to win. So now I'm really excited and since I'm only 11 points away from the magic 2000 hopefully I'll be able to play some good chess and prove my worth as an Expert.

I was thinking about something...

2008-01-15T15:09:00.000-08:00

Last night I was working on the Maroczy a little bit when I realized something. I've been going about this all wrong. I have been looking at moves when I should be looking at games. You do not gain an appreciation for an opening by finding the next book move, you gain an appreciation for an opening by watching strong masters handle it against other strong masters. I don't even know the plans for White really, just the moves. And this is what has cost me, I've been missing the nuances because I haven't really been looking at games, I've been looking at positions. I haven't been looking at plans. In the Peterson game I knew he was going to play f5 after he played f4, but I didn't care to figure out how to play against it I just ignored it because I didn't really understand the main points. I have to figure out the main themes before I can make any progress.

Although I think AFTER you have acquired the themes by osmosis it is important to find the correct move orders to reach positions you are familiar with and comfortable in. Yesterday I got a lot of good ideas from a very unexpected source. More about this in a few months when I am ready to try them out.

Continental Chess Survey

2008-01-13T07:56:00.000-08:00

In my email I received a survey from Continental Chess asking about start times. I said start times should always be later. I'm sure a lot of you got the same survey. But the email was clearly a form letter that they had and upon closer inspection they didn't even change all of the fields, some of the fields were left as instructions as what to put in the field. There is also a 25% coupon but it is not clear whether it was intended to be there or not. Quite comical.

'Insincerity is easy to spot. Sincerely Bill Goichberg.'

I must add that I love the Goichberg tournaments and I will be playing in one next weekend. Still really funny though.

Ouch

2008-01-11T12:35:00.000-08:00

One thing's for sure: I am not invincible. And the Maroczy may be my Kryptonite...

I was planning on posting everything in chess publisher but too much analysis I think, this happened before once. So just the game in chess publisher, and everything else here.

Peterson,David (1876) - Gafni,Kevin (1989) [B39]
Reno Class A Championship, 10.01.2008

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 Ne6 10.Qd2 Qa5 11.Rc1 a6? The early a6 is a good idea in the other system I play against the Maroczy, here it is wrong [11...b6;
11...d6]

12.f4 d6 13.Be2 Bd7 14.0-0 b5? Still incorrectly following this plan, which is not effective here

15.f5! my position is in shambles already

15...Bxc3? I am falling apart, I missed the threat

16.bxc3?! [16.Rxc3 it must be stronger to leave the pawn structure intact]

16...Nc5 17.fxg6?! [17.e5! Qc7 18.exd6 exd6 19.Bd4]

17...hxg6 18.Qd5? This move looks very strong, but [18.Bxc5 puts nails in the coffin 18...dxc5 19.Qd5]

18...0-0 19.Bxc5?!

[19.Rxf7! Rxf7 20.Qxa8+ Rf8 21.Qd5+ Be6 22.Qg5]

19...Be6?

[19...Qxa2! move order is important here 20.Rf2 Be6 21.Qg5 dxc5 22.cxb5 axb5 23.Bxb5 Qa3 I do not see White winning this]

20.Bb4 Qxa2 21.Qd1 [21.Qd3 Bxc4 22.Rc2 Bxd3 23.Rxa2 Bxe2 24.Rxe2 doesn't seem so bad, although White is still winning]

21...Bxc4 22.Bxc4 Qxc4 23.Qd4? "I just figured it would be an easy win" -Peterson [23.Ra1 Qxe4 This is very difficult for Black]

23...Qxd4+ 24.cxd4 a5 25.Bd2

OK, so I have these connected passed pawns, there are two ways to draw this, one is to get the piece for the pawns, the other is to trade one pair of rooks and get all of white's pawns and go into a drawn (impractically won) R+B v R ending

25...Ra7? This is inaccurate, I should not be afraid of Rc7 as this takes away from White's defense of my passed pawns [25...a4]

26.d5? White returns the favor [26.Ra1 a4 27.Rfb1 Rb8 28.Kf2 the pawns are stopped]

26...a4 27.Be3?

[27.Ra1 Rc8 The pawns are sterile with the bishop on the e1-a4 diagonal]

27...Rb7 28.Rc6?!

I was hoping for this move, White is hoping to attack the Black position, this is incorrect, he should just play against the pawns

[28.Ra1 Ra8 This may still be drawn, the pawns are ready to roll]

28...Ra8!= with initiative! This felt good.

29.Rfc1 a3 The rook on a8 threatens to become active on a4

30.Bd4 f6 no mates here 31.Rc8+

[31.Rc7 Rxc7 32.Rxc7 Ra4! 33.Bc3 b4 34.Ba1 b3 35.Rb7 Rxe4 36.Kf2 b2 37.Bxb2 axb2 38.Rxb2 Black is winning]

31...Rxc8 32.Rxc8+ Kf7 33.Rc3

[33.Ra8 b4 34.Kf2 b3 35.Rxa3 b2 36.Bxb2 Rxb2+=]

33...b4 34.Rb3 a2

I found the way to regain the piece

35.Kf2 Ra7 36.Ba1 Rc7

It's all about rook play

37.Rxb4 Here my opponent offered a draw

[37.Rb2 Rc1 38.Rxa2 b3 39.Ra7 b2 40.Bxb2 Rc2+ the bishop is still lost]

37...Rc1 I moved almost instantly and decided to keep playing. It's not as though I have particularly good chances, but it is very hard to change your frame of mind and I was counting on a mistake, his pawn structure is weaker

38.Bd4 a1Q 39.Bxa1 Rxa1 40.h4 Ra3 41.Rb2 Rd3

42.Re2?! if the rook doesn't voluntarily become passive then Black can make no progress

42...f5! 43.Re3 fxe4?

I had been intending to play [43...Rd4 44.exf5 gxf5 I thought this was a draw, I'm not really sure. It's definitely better than the game though 45.h5 (45.Rf3 Rd2+ 46.Kf1 Rxd5 47.g4 Kg6 48.Re3) 45...Rxd5 46.Rg3 f4 47.Rg4 Rf5 48.h6 e5 49.Rh4 Kg8 50.h7+ Kh8 51.Rh6 d5 52.g4 (52.Ke2 Rg5 53.Kf2 d4 54.Kf3 d3 55.Rd6 Rg3+ 56.Ke4 Re3+ 57.Kf5 Kxh7 58.Rd7+) 52...fxg3+ 53.Kxg3 d4 54.Kg4]

44.Rxd3 exd3

45.g4! I missed this move when I played fxe4, I had convinced myself that he would have to go after the pawn but this is foolish[45.Ke3 Kf6 46.Kxd3 (46.g4 still draws) 46...Kf5-+ a pipe dream] ½-½

This game reminds me of a game about a year and a half ago that I had forgotten but I will dig it up and post it. It was also an Accelerated Dragon (but not a Maroczy Bind), I fell behind to the point that it looked as if there would be no salvation. But then found a winning endgame and ended up drawing.

I think this game exposes several character flaws that may trip me up on my quest to become a master.

First, overconfidence. This tells in my shallow approach to the position, falling so far behind so early. I haven't been challenged in a long time and this leads to laziness and cockiness. It also shows off the board, I have been lazy lately because I have been playing well. I just don't want to study, even though I believe that the regular habit of studying helps more than the tangible knowledge gained from studying. I am going to play the expert section at the Western Class Championships and hopefully this will humble me a bit so I can close out this tournament with the necessary determination and effort. Also in my last game in the Maroczy I was playing a different line, and I was prepared to play it again and had found some options. But for some reason I reverted to the line I used to play, a line I haven't looked at in over a year. This was definitely a good chance to use it but then I ended up playing the plans from my new variation instead of the plans from my old variation. Very sloppy.

Second, tunnel vision. In the analysis to my last game I mentioned that I probably would have played 13.Ng5 in response to 12...Rg8 because I had seen it several moves earlier and I thought it was strong. Here I play 14...b5 because I am on autopilot, I am not even paying attention to White's options I am merely trying to free my game. Again, sloppy.

Third, mental fatigue. After White squanders his chance and loses his way I should keep pressing. There's no reason not to play 43...Rd4, I was ready to play this and I was ready to keep pressing. Then I got caught up in 43...fe and convinced myself that this was winning overlooking a very simple reply. This is quite uncharacteristic. Although I had not spent very much time (I spent about 10 minutes after we reached the time control and 40 minutes on my first 30 moves), I really worked to find the solution I did. I think this must have had an effect on my ensuing play because usually my calculation in pawn endings especially is on point. If I think I can play well in Los Angeles next weekend I'm going to have to be much sharper than this. Study habits obviously contribute to the sharpness of your brain as long as you don't overwork it. I'm trying to find a balance this week.

The Maroczy is certainly a challenge for Accelerated Dragon Players. In his series on Jeremy Silman's website IM Timothy Taylor discusses his frustration with the Maroczy. I may be looking for alternatives. My next two games I also have black but against 1.d4 players, it would be interesting to see if they decide to hunt me down in this line instead.

One good thing about this game, I'm realizing why I lose games.

This song pretty much sums it up:

I'm fixing a hole where the rain gets in
And stops my mind from wandering
Where it will go

I'm filling the cracks that ran through the door
And kept my mind from wandering
Where it will go

And it really doesn't matter if
I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong
See the people standing there
Who disagree and never win
And wonder why they don't get in my door

Bonus: A quote from Hillary Clinton when she was in a hispanic neighborhood in Las Vegas: "We treat these problems as if one is guacamole and one is chips, when ... they both go together," Good metaphor...

Carelessness

2008-01-07T07:56:00.001-08:00

In my last game I talked a little about how I wanted the game to be over and I stopped paying attention. The game presented after the break is very similar. I get a huge advantage very early and by the time the queens are exchanged at move 33 I am up the exchange and two pawns. I was so mad that he wouldn't resign. I know this may be the wrong reaction but honestly this isn't in the D class, we are A class players. Why do I have to play this out? So I proceed to move my king into a skewer since I figured I didn't even have to look anymore and then I realize I just gave up my exchange....

On move 42 he offered a draw. I was furious. He doesn't have any winning chances. Of course he wants a draw. I am the only one who should offer a draw. I laughed (I know that's rude but fuck him) and he got all smug after I refused like I was disrespecting him in some way. How is it that old people (he was OLD) can be so disrespectful and not even notice and think that you are disrespecting them when you take offense? And then he makes such a passive move on move 46 and from there I was on cruise control. I wasn't even spending any time at the board that's an elementary win and he's still just playing it out like he's going to find a draw. In the lower classes it is not a guarantee that they will win so easily but I do not think any player rated over 1700 would have any trouble converting the position after Black's move 46 into a point. Would you play this out? Why?

I can say that I wouldn't play this ending out.

My last question for you is how confident are you that you would win this ending? Does this affect your answer from earlier?

Can A Move Be Ugly And Beautiful?

2008-01-07T07:56:00.000-08:00

I came back from London very eager to play a game. Hungry almost. Then as Thursday approached I started getting a little nervous. I haven't been nervous when playing experts, but I think because I am 'expected' to win the A section it adds a little pressure. I have the highest rating and also my good results lately translate into a huge target on my forehead.

Also I had never faced this opponent. He is at his floor of 1900 but at one time he was rated well over 2100. He doesn't play regularly at the club and so I had very little idea of what to expect. I was also toying with the idea of opening with 1 d4. All in all I was just a little jittery, probably a result of my week off.

In the end I decided to play e4 and my opponent introduced a sideline in the French Winawer. When I saw his ninth move I literally cringed. My spirits were lifted; I rose to the occasion and attained a completely won position on move 12! Black tried to create complications with an exchange sacrifice but was busted by a very straightforward finish.

There are a couple moves I want to talk about in more detail.

9...Nd7 - This move condemns the Black Queenside to passivity. The Bishop is trapped and consequently the rook is trapped. Here I paused because I knew Qc7 was coming next and I had to put two pieces on e5, I chose to play Bb5 and defend indirectly because this meant that Black had to go to extraordinary lengths to get his pieces out. The bishop cannot even be kicked by a6 because Black's a-pawn is pinned to the rook. The French is marked by Black's inactivity in the early stages, if White can prolong this inactivity into the later stages of the game then Black has lost.

12. Kf1 - This move is profoundly strong. When I first started playing 3. Nc3 I was unable to appreciate moves like this. It always seemed to me that king moves like this were made mostly from a position of weakness, not from a position of strength. The variations that arise from the Winawer are very sharp, and the game hinges on White's ability to establish and maintain the initiative. My position after this move looks so ugly at first glance, but there is undeniable harmony between my pieces. Black's position at first glance looks very solid, but upon closer inspection we realize that none of his pieces can move and holes will be created before his pieces get into the game. I found Kf1 before I played Bb5, because I wanted to attack f7. I realized that by pinning the knight Black couldn't play Ne5, which would defend f7, but then I saw that if I moved my knight from f3, then Qe5 comes with check. So Kf1 parries this check. It also gains a tempo by hitting the rook. It also allows Rg1 which is the strongest follow up to any of Black's rook moves. The king needs a home, obviously castling is out of the question, but on e1 the king is vulnerable to checks from e5 or c3.

12...Rxf2 - I was very surprised when returning to my computer after leaving Fritz to dissect this move for several hours that Fritz recommended this move over all the alternatives and by a large margin. My opponent and I were under the impression that this move was an error but it turns out that White's initiative has become so strong due to the time lost by Nd7, Rg2 and now another rook move that Black will be forced to lose material in the ensuing moves. I think this sacrifice was provoked by the fact that it looks like White's king will not be so safe at f2 and also White's king has just moved and now must move again.

The hypothetical 12...Rg8 13 Ng5? - I may have already convinced myself to play this move during the game, but by the time Black played Rf2 I had found the strength of Rg1 and I was starting to play with different move orders. This move would have been a mistake, although I am pretty sure Black would have played 13...Rg5 anyway which allows White to retain some advantage. I have gotten over the bad habit of playing premeditated responses instantly (the psychological effect is not nearly enough compensation for a faulty plan, this used to be a very serious defect in my play) so I may well have found the strength of 13. Rg1, but in any case the fact that I had thought Ng5 was so strong is an error. I was too caught up in the plans that I had started to consider on 10. Nf3 and I was not open to other plans of kingside attack. Also, I overestimated White's chances after 13...Rf8. This error has taught me a valuable lesson, and also shown me that even in such a strong victory it is still possible to gain insight into my own faults.

15. bxc3 - I had glanced at the rook sacrifice on f2 at some point and as soon as I saw this position I knew that there was no chance for Black. All of his play is gone and my position is so strong. My rooks are connected, everything is defended, the king is inaccessible. I'm up the exchange and he has no compensation whatsoever.

17. h4, 18. h5, 19. h6 - After Black has retreated his queen to d7, he has blocked his Bishop in again. Fritz recommends taking the a7 pawn, which is obvious, as slightly better than 17. h4. But Black is several moves away from ever using any of his pieces and all my pieces are on good squares. Also I had realized that there was no stopping this pawn without making serious material concessions. The fact that I can play these three moves in succession show how poor Black's position really is.

20. Rag1 - I wanted to take on f6 and it took me a little bit to see Black's reply (20. exf6 Qg3+), this move puts the rook on the open file where it threatens to penetrate into Black's kingside, and also threatens exf6 since now there is no Qg3.

28. Nd4 - The c2 pawn protects my king from checks along the second rank, the knight defends c2, the bishop defends the knight, and the king defends the bishop. Black's queen has nothing to attack.

The last few weeks it has been nice to see my effort away from the board produce such strong chess over the board.

Time to Study Fischer

2008-01-04T16:02:00.000-08:00

Three years ago I was just developing a habit of studying and I really didn't know what to study. I had never put any real effort into my game. I had been stuck at 1600 for three years although I was probably already stronger than this. The reason that I lost interest in chess in the later years of high school was mostly that I did not want to work at it. I wanted to be good, but I did not have the discipline to make it happen. This is one of my major shortfalls, I am so used to things coming easily to me that when I am faced with a challenge I often do not step up to the plate. I also had no guidance, no one to tell me what to read, what games to look at, I was on my own. So coming off my hiatus I crafted a repertoire and studied openings, just as I had done in high school. I also studied endings every once in a while cause people say you're supposed to. But I had never really given any thought to just looking at annotated games....

Of course I had seen a lot of games, but when I was studying I would very rarely look at annotated games. When I was looking at annotated games the annotations hardly made any sense. I was looking at more recent games and the themes were too advanced for me. The opening was way over my head, then the middlegame would feature comments that seemed like Chinese, and annotations in the endgame were simply exhausting. Then I came across Capablanca's Best Chess Endings by Chernev. I studied this book almost exclusively during the first half of 2005 and my rating went up 200 points over the summer (which was my chess season during college). As I read this book, I found themes that I could understand. In Capablanca's time there was no advanced opening theory, no exchange sac, no Chinese, just pure simple chess. Exchange the pieces at the right time in the right place and convert. So simple, so beautiful. My tendencies to attempt to create brilliancies because I had seen Tal and Fischer and Kasparov do it went away and I just played simple winning chess. I have a distinct attacking style, but there is nothing I like more than reaching a drawn endgame and outplaying my opponent. And I started to realize how to reach won endgames from the middlegame, and how to convert won endgames into full points. I realized that the sense of urgency in my play should be controlled and avoiding conflict can be useful. I was no longer trying to find holes in my opponents moves, I was finding holes in their positions.

After the summer when I was done with Capablanca I read Watson and all of a sudden everything made sense. I was unable to look at annotated games because I didn't understand them. It was not that Watson explained modern chess so well that I absorbed each individual concept and was able to put them into practice. It was that I realized that each individual concept was a product of the games of the masters of the past. Each concept had been introduced slowly through hundreds of games and to gain a full understanding I would have to turn to the past. I bought the Kasparov's My Great Predecessors, Volume 2 (I was done with Capablanca, time for the next era). This features the games of Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, and Tal. I had never even heard Euwe, but from this book I gained a great appreciation for him. I knew my strategy was correct. I could understand the games of this time period. As 'new' ideas were introduced I was acquainted with them and studying became not a chore, but a compulsion. I sped through Euwe and arrived at my first chess hero, Mikhail Botvinnik.

If you had asked me my favorite player (or my opinion on the best of all time) before 2005 I would have said unhesitatingly Fischer. I was in love with the story of Fischer, but I knew very little about his chess. In fact I knew very little about chess history in general. When I started to read Botvinnik I fell in love. Botvinnik's play was so dominating, so methodical. In many of his games it seems as though his opponent is merely going through the motions and does not get any say whatsoever in the course or outcome of the game. After reading Kasparov's portion of Botvinnik I bought Botvinnik's self-annotated games and his analysis is so well thought out. It all made so much sense. I didn't feel as though any of the analysis was out of reach. To break such a scientific approach to the game new ideas were required and who better to introduce these ideas than Mikhail Tal. To fully appreciate Tal I think you have to read Tal's prose. He is such a talented writer, his evaluation of the position is so down to earth. He gives it to you straight. During this time I also read a lot of Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games, but I was going to wait until I reached the fourth volume of the Kasparov books before I performed a detailed analysis of Fischer.

Studying the Kasparov books seemed like such an accessible way to gain knowledge on the history and now I have finally reached the Fischer book. I am ready for the themes that Fischer imparted on the game. Not that I am not already familiar with them in many ways, but I think it is important to understand the source. I ended up skipping around a little bit because I was studying Karpov and also studying a lot of modern themes. But as far as my chess history goes, it is time to learn about Fischer.

Is Anyone Going to This Tournament??

2008-01-02T10:20:00.001-08:00

I want to go to the Western Class Championships in LA during MLK Weekend. I would much rather share a room and transportation costs (I can drive from Reno) than get a room by myself. Is anyone else considering going to this tournament? I suppose if you are in the Southern California area and have a couch I can sleep on that would work too.

Live from London

2007-12-30T13:29:00.000-08:00

From looking at some other blogs it looks like I'm not the only one who has taken a break for the holidays. But just wanted to give a quick update on my trip... It's been pretty fun, London's a great town. My only internet access is my sister's computer in the hotel next to ours however which kind of sucks. One of the highlights of my trip so far has definitely been the London Chess Centre, it has the best selection of books I have ever seen. Even better than tournament bookstores, if you are ever in London check it out. Fortunately it's walking distance from my hotel.

I've even had some time to study, waking up an hour early here and there to get some rook endings in. And I also picked up Rocking the Ramparts by Larry C and I have been reading that a little bit. It is a very strong book.

The real topic that spurred this post is the concept of chess visualization contrasted with the visualization of a map and learning a city. Since I have been here I have become acquainted with where things are in relation to each other and it didn't take long to be able to 'see' myself on the map and find my way on that virtual map relatively easily. I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about this concept of learning the relationship between real places in relation to chess. I think that my chess visualization skills can easily be translated into location visualization and that this allows me to locate things and keep in mind where things are in relation to each other. Any thoughts?

Crazy Thought in Game Play

2007-12-21T22:00:00.000-08:00

So if you have been reading this you know that I have been focused on wild imbalanced positions and I'm trying to get a better feel for how to play these positions as they arise often. This game I invite a sacrifice because I did not believe his attack was strong enough. We both start making mistakes as soon as the position becomes imbalanced. Like I said in the earlier post it comes down to who is more comfortable and who is able to make fewer mistakes.

This was a nice way to close out the year. I may not post until after new year's so Happy Holidays! See you next year!

I Hate Waiting

2007-12-21T16:22:00.001-08:00

I'm at work, it's 4:22, I have nothing to do. I am leaving for London on Monday and this will give me 11 (!) consecutive days off of work. I am excited; I just wish I could get out of here and meet up with my friend on the slopes. But I can't, I'm stuck here, so I figured I would rant about my year in chess.

Around today one year ago I had just finished school and bought my car and I had accepted a job in Vegas. I was pretty excited to start my job, meet some new people, and of course play the North American Open. I went to school in Chicago and one of my friends lived just West of Denver which is on the way to Vegas and he was driving home too so we had tentative plans to drive together. I left and got to Omaha (I have friends there, too) and he got there a little bit after me. Then, one of the worst snowstorms I've been a part of hit Colorado and Nebraska, literally every highway in Colorado was closed. Anyways so my trip got delayed and I got to Vegas a little bit late and then I told my boss I wanted to play the North American Open and I took two days off. That was the last time I got to study chess for over 4 months.

I was working for an adult cabaret that opened January 13 in Vegas. It was an extension of a club in Reno and I had done some work with them in Summer 2006. I did all the accounting for the club in Vegas. I mean everything, created and implemented procedures; tracked cash; tracked bank accounts; dealt with vendors; dealt with payroll issues; trained cashiers to work in the cage; financial projections; financial statements; capital rationing; etc. My boss was the kind of guy who wakes up at 6-7 in the morning and goes to bed between 9-11 at night and 'works' the whole day. Now by 'work' of course I mean he spends all day on the phone but he can definitely make things happen. Since him and my father were close, I lived with him the first 3 months I was in Vegas, big mistake. I took two days off for the North American Open right when I first got to Vegas, then I worked over 10 hours a day for the next 25 days straight and if I ever complained I got reminded that I had taken days off and that most people aren't getting days off. It was fair because I had much more work than I could possibly finish (working 100+ hours in a week and still falling behind is extremely stressful). So I probably got 4 days off in the first three months I was there.

Then there was the Reno club, which had a momentary lapse in good accounting when I first went back to school, but since then was supposedly fine. Then I find out in mid-February that actually they have been messing around in Reno and I have to go up there (come up here?) and fire the people in the office and train a new girl to help. And then I had to hire someone else and oversee the Reno office too. I was on salary this whole time at a rate that was less than we had agreed upon (it worked out to about $10/hr with the hours I was working) in November before I came out and I was given a promise that after 90 days I would have a review. So 90 days came finally and I asked for the review and it was denied so I quit.

I made a resignation letter, made copies for the other managers and went into my GMs office to tell him I was leaving. The owner wasn't there but by now I had moved out of his house at least. I gave it to my GM and he gave it back and said I can't leave right now he'll make sure it gets worked out. So finally after I quit a few more times in the next couple weeks finally I issued an ultimatum and got a raise but things weren't ever really the same. I was never really happy with that job again.

Around the time I was trying to get a raise, I came up to Reno for my birthday and to play the Far West Open. The reason I started working for that club in the first place was because my dad was diagnosed with brain cancer in April 2006 (we found out the day before my birthday) and he couldn't work in the office anymore so I stepped in to help. One year later when I came home for my birthday he was extremely weak, I didn't know what to do I felt so helpless. I lost my first three games of the tournament, got a bye (very rare) on the night of the 7th, my birthday is the 8th. So I went to the bar and drank about two-thirds of a bottle of Patron and lost my fourth consecutive game the next day hungover. I won my last game but this is a small consolation.

So after this miserable performance, combined with some troubles with a girl I had been seeing at the time, I started playing and studying again. Intensely. My dad died on June 23 and I moved back to Reno (the club was failing anyway which was more stress) to be with my mom. I ended up quitting my job at the end of July (more study time). By the time I got a job at the end of August I was back in a good routine and I was playing good chess. I have lost only 4 games since July (three of them were absurd blunders where the game lasted less than 20 moves) and I broke through 1900 for the first time and I am now about 1990. I earned 130 points in the second half of this year.

To close out the year I won last night to guarantee at least a tie for first in the 1800+ section of the club tournament (I'm taking a bye in the last round). I put up 2.5/3 against three experts with a performance of over 2340. Next year the long anticipated climb to master from expert begins...

A Crazy Thought

2007-12-19T14:40:00.000-08:00

I knew there was a lofty thought bouncing around my mind trying to get out recently. And it finally makes sense to me. I have been focused mainly on sacrifices and activity and it has led me to a crazy conclusion.

It makes no difference whether your position is objectively better or worse!

Yesterday I was reading some of the commentary on BDK's post and katar gave a link to an article by Kevin Spraggett. I am not really familiar with Kevin Spraggett, although I was born in Canada we left when I was 11. But I was so intrigued I read everything he had written on his website. The link I provided above contains the point that knocked me out of my seat.

You will never catch Kasparov in a sound but passive position...he would much prefer an inferior position with some little counterplay!

So I had always thought about this as if the activity is compensation for positional inferiority. And I favor activity to positional aspects anyways so I thought that I had some understanding of this concept. Turns out I haven't even scratched the surface of exploring this deep idea.

My logic from his point to my point goes as follows, and there are other things he says that helped me reach my conclusion:

Chess is about mistakes. If I make a mistake, the evaluation of the position changes. If I play the best move, the evaluation of the position remains the same.

Sooner or later both players will make mistakes. This point is important.

I must seek positions where my opponent is more likely to make mistakes than I am, regardless if these positions are objectively worse, because the evaluation of the position will change when my opponent makes a mistake!

So to continue the Fritz-bashing that wormwood initiated. It doesn't really matter if Fritz says you're down a half a pawn if your opponent (not Fritz, usually not even a master) cannot play the next 10-15 moves without making a mistake.

This means evaluating a sacrifice does not even have to be by objective reasoning (all talk of assume your opponent will play the best move aside), but rather by weighing how well you think you can hold together the resulting position. If you see that you will have a plan in the position after the sacrifice and you can find good resources, then chances are your opponent will err in the melee. An unbalanced position makes it extremely hard to come up with accurate moves. You get the advantage of entering this crazy position at least with some idea of what your strengths are, and often times sacrificing a weakness frees up sufficient forces for a strong initiative.

I am thinking this is part of a larger discovery, I'll keep you posted.

Defense Wins Championships

2007-12-16T22:00:00.000-08:00

I was scheduled to play the Club Champion, Bill Case, last Thursday. We had never played before so I was excited to see what would come of this game. The game really only lasted about 9 moves from the end of the theory to the forced endgame but it was a tense 9 moves. I put the hood of my sweatshirt on after I missed 16...Bxd5 until I played 27...Rc2. This is something I normally do when I am defending and am wearing a hooded sweatshirt. It helps me block everything out. I ended up finding a nice continuation that muted his threats. This is a sign of my maturity at the board. I accepted the fact that I had missed my chance and the best thing to do was simply end the game and try again next time. I only used half an hour, this was a pretty easy game. I played well.

As I mentioned in my last post, I was a little frustrated with how my opening turned out. I expected to have more fighting chances in this variation. In reality as long as I can consistently draw this position my opponent should be the one looking for a new variation, so I'm not worried about it.

I have one more game left this year, as I will miss the final round of this weekly tournament due to a family trip to London (I'm not sad about it). It is against Terry Alsasua, who lost to Bill Case in the Club Championship last year after winning in 2006. I am going to have to be able to beat both these players if I want to make a run for the title this year, but I think I have a pretty good chance.

The Problem with The Black Pieces

2007-12-14T14:29:00.000-08:00

A while back Reassembler wrote a post detailing the problems with building a repertoire for White. Now I will explain some of the problems we run into when building a repertoire for Black.

In the opening Black is fighting primarily for equality. Black prepares responses to White's ideas and in most lines it is ultimately Black who decides the flavor of the position. As Black we do not have to prepare as many variations, we just have to prepare a few very well.

Take for instance the Sicilian. When White plays e4 we will play c5. What are White's options? Aside from the Open Sicilian, White only has a handful of choices, and all of them require very little theoretical knowledge for both sides. White can fianchetto his kingside bishop and play the Closed Sicilian, he can play the c3 Sicilian, he can play the Smith-Morra, he can play the Grand Prix Attack, or he can play ideas with Bb5. Now if you are Black you need one line against each of these (I will mention here that you can eliminate preparation against the Smith-Morra completely by playing 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 c3 Nf6!? which pretty much forces 4 e5 Nd5 which is a known position in the c3 Sicilian). So including the Open Sicilian (and excluding the Smith-Morra) we have to be prepared to play against only 5 lines when we play against e4.

Black gets to choose his specific variation of the Sicilian, and this is where Black's real work comes into play. In any particular variation of the Open Sicilian there are probably two or three really good White tries, so we learn those. Except that a lot of books recommending openings discount these or mention the best tries very briefly (this is the advantage of having survey books that analyze both sides of a position rather than repertoire books recommending one side of a position). So it may take a long time to actually find the best tries for White. Here's where things get really tricky. The best tries for White continue to maintain a slight advantage well into the middlegame, meaning that for you to play such a variation you have to be making the best move in a worse position for 20-30 moves until your opponent slips and you can equalize. But the longer you go in this worse position the greater the chance that you will not be able to win at all, but rather will have to equalize by forcing a drawn endgame and ending the game (this is what happened last night in my game which prompted this post).

Let's talk about last night for a little bit, not the game, just the opening. We played my pet line the Accelerated Dragon, there are two main White tries, he chose the Maroczy Bind. Basically White gets a space advantage and tries to deny Black any active plan, the drawback of this line for White is that even if he succeeds it is very hard to win. If you're Black in this line you have to patiently create play, there are several plans at your disposal, but you are lacking space and the pressure is always there. For an active player like me this is a little uncomfortable however I have studied the opening enough to know that the activity is there if you are patient. But it is clear, especially after looking at the line in more detail last night, that White can practically force a favorable endgame, even if he can't win. So basically if you want to play this line as Black you might have to play a cramped position for the whole game and then try to equalize in the endgame which will almost certainly result in a draw. That's not fun at all.

Here's the point: I have played the Accelerated Dragon against e4 for almost 10 years. Everyone knows I play it, everyone knows I would rather play White's other main try than the Maroczy. And if I do play against the Maroczy, I have to accept this shitty position that could just fizzle out before I even get a shot in. So what are my options?

There are options within the Maroczy which may provide me with a more complicated game and this may be where I should look, but what about when my opponents find the best try against those? The line I played last night is the most highly respected try against the Maroczy (I talked about it in an earlier post) and it leads almost by force to a slightly favorable endgame for White. I am confident that I can draw this endgame, but I don't know that I'll ever be able to score a point.

So I'm stuck. In order to avoid the Maroczy I would have to learn a new Sicilian or (even worse) a new response to e4. So now instead of my original 5 lines against e4, which is what I enjoyed about being Black in the opening, I will have to prepare several additional lines against e4. It is true that I was planning on unveiling a couple new lines against e4 anyways, but I shouldn't have to.

This is the misery of building a repertoire for Black, I enjoy all the positions except for one and it makes me want to change my first move and start all over again.

French Domination

2007-12-12T18:19:00.000-08:00

Check out this rampage against the French...

This game's dedicated to BDK, for today's discussion on combinations. The only combinations are moves 17-18 and 23-25. I didn't 'see' what happened afterwards only that my pieces looked very active. Fritz confirms that my play is extremely accurate from move 13 onwards. (19 Nh7 may have been better, other than that, I challenge you to find an improvement.)

Gafni-Garingo II

2007-12-08T23:59:00.000-08:00

So coincidentally I got paired with Garingo once again. I have never felt more comfortable playing a chess game. After last game I guess I have rid myself of the tension. I am confident in my moves and my ability and I am able to find very strong ideas and make them work (for both sides). I still have a smile on my face from this game...

(This game does not have annotations in Chess Publisher because I normally just annotate the game in ChessBase and then hit File>Send>Send Game...TXT, which brings up the game in text, then just Copy and Paste, but this time I did that and it didn't work at all, so I'm just going to post the annotations here and the game from Chess Publisher)

Because boxing has been a recent topic of discussion. And because I happened to catch the Mayweather-Hatton fight earlier tonight (another happy coincidence). And because I think boxing and chess have a lot in common (if you agree, tell me why you think so). I have decided to throw some boxing analogies in my annotation.

Gafni,Kevin (1956) - Garingo,Nathaniel (2105) [C18]
Return December (1), 06.12.2007

Round 1: Definition of Pawn Structure

1.e4 e6!? Last time he played the Dragon 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 This position is the Main Line of the French and dates back to the 30's
7...0-0!?

[7...Qc7 The famous "Poisoned Pawn" variation (the Najdorf isn't the only one) 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Ne2 An interesting position; 7...Kf8 is the other main alternative to 0-0]

If Round 1 is any indication, this is going to be a lively fight.

Round 2: White's Kingside Play Against Black's Queenside Play

8.Bd3 Nbc6 [8...Qa5 is an alternative that has recently become popular]

9.h4?! Although this move becomes useful in the game, it is too slow

[9.Qh5!? is very strong here 9...Ng6 (9...h6? 10.Bxh6 gxh6 11.Qxh6 Nf5 12.Bxf5 exf5 13.0-0-0!) 10.Nf3;
9.Bg5!? Qa5 10.Ne2 cxd4 11.f4 dxc3 12.0-0 Ng6 13.Qh5 with attack; 9.Nf3 is the old move, but after 9...f5 Black can achieve equality in all known lines, this is the line Garingo had prepared]

9...Qa5 10.Bd2 f5

[Nathaniel suggested 10...Qa4 which pins the d4 pawn 11.Qh5 Ng6 (11...Nf5 12.g4 g6 13.Qg5 Nfxd4 14.Qf6! Nxc2+ 15.Kf1 winning on the spot) 12.Nf3 cxd4 13.Ng5 h6 14.Nxf7 Rxf7 15.Bxg6 with advantage]

11.Qg3 c4?? Black loses all counterplay with this move, this is a strategic error that makes itself felt over the course of the entire game [11...Qa4!? threatens the d4 pawn and 12.dxc5 leaves White with targets]

12.Be2 Bd7?! 13.Nh3 Qa4

14.Nf4! A light jab to leave myself looking open.

[14.Ra2!?+- Black's play has been brought to a complete stop, his pieces are in gridlock (the knight on c6 has nowhere to go while the knight on e7 and the bishop are headed to c6!! And Black's Queen after spending two moves hopping out, must turn back). I was aware of this idea in this variation and I saw the move during the game. But I got caught up in the moment and didn't realize how much time I had to let this position come together. 14...Kh8 (14...f4! I was explaining the merit of this move to Grant after the game, the Black knight needs f5 more than Black needs the f-pawn 15.Nxf4 Nf5 16.Qg4 b5 17.Nh5 Kh8 18.0-0 b4 19.Rb1 (19.cxb4?! Ncxd4) 19...b3 20.cxb3 cxb3 21.Rab2 Rab8 22.Bc1 Na5 This position is not easy to evaluate, it is very easy for either side to go wrong) 15.Nf4 h6 16.0-0 b5 One move late Black is deprived of all play...]

14...Kh8?

[14...Qxc2 15.Nh5 Ng6 16.Rc1 Qa4 17.Nxg7! f4 18.Qg5 At move 14 I saw this position and I saw my pieces are active and his are still doing nothing, I saw the beginning of his best line above and saw that he is having a much easier time finding moves, I like to hold the initiative for very long periods of time, and grind opponents down. This is why I chose this position over the one above. It is comforting to know that in both cases I found his strongest plan, even though he played a weaker move.]

15.h5! I land a right.(This move is dedicated to the Egg for calling me a n00b (sparfy recently said he feels like a n00b when he advances his h-pawn) )

15...Qxc2?! He tries to fight back, but I land a nasty hook.

16.Ng6+! Say hello to my little friend!

[16.Bc1!! Deep prophylaxis, Fritz finds this pretty move, rendering Black's queen not only harmless, but a serious liability, this is a very instructive move, it teaches me to pause the attack and look at the other moves. The Queen will have to move, Ng6 is still going to be there. An interesting lesson on chess time.]

16...Kg8 Nathaniel gets back up but there is blood above his right eye.

[16...Nxg6?? 17.hxg6 h6 18.Rxh6+ gxh6 19.Qh4 I saw this position and stopped because everything except Fritz's desperate attempt is obviously mate 19...Qxd2+ (19...Kg7 20.Qxh6+ Kg8 21.Qh7#) 20.Kxd2 Kg7 21.Rh1 h5 22.Bxh5 Be8 23.Bf3 Bxg6 24.Bh5 Bxh5 25.Qxh5 Rg8 26.Qg5+ Kf7 27.Qf6+ Ke8 28.Rh7 still mating relatively quickly;
16...hxg6?? 17.hxg6+ Kg8 18.Rh8+ Kxh8 19.Qh4+ Kg8 20.Qh7# is fun]

17.Nxf8 Rxf8

I definitely got the better of him that round.

Round 3: Queen Play

18.Qf4 Qb2? awfully shallow

19.0-0 Na5 20.Rab1

[20.Rfb1! Qc2 21.Bd1! forces his queen to remain in enemy territory]

20...Qc2 21.Rfc1 Qe4 [21...Qa4!?] 22.Bd1

[22.Qxe4 dxe4 allows Black some breathing room]

Neither of us has been able to get anything going so far this round, and Black backs off but stays within reach.

22...Be8??

23.Qg5! His back is to the ropes

23...Nec6?! 24.f3!

[24.h6!! here I fail to find a knockout blow because I didn't think he would get through the round anyway, there is nothing wrong with just working that cut, but I had plenty of time and he was in the corner with his hands down. First things first, don't allow any counterblows, then throw the winning punch]

24...h6!

[Of course not 24...Qd3?? 25.Bc2 h6 too late 26.Qf4 Qe2 27.Re1 closed games take the punch out of the heavy pieces]

25.fxe4! I get the better of him in a violent exchange of blows to the face.

[25.Qg3? f4 the Queen escapes via f5]

25...hxg5 26.exd5 exd5 27.Bxg5

Now he could hardly see out of his left eye. I really don't know how they closed that cut up enough that he could continue to fight, but I got it open about 15 seconds into the next round...

Round 4: The d5 pawn

27...Bf7

28.Rb5! Note that the Bishop on g5 since recently becoming active now prevents Black from defending the d pawn with Ne7 or Rd8 (and it's the bad bishop...) this is the inspiration for the rest of the game, two attackers against one defender

28...b6?

[28...a6 29.Rb6 and Black must give his queenside pawns just to untangle his pieces]

29.Bf3 Kh7 30.Re1! Be6? 31.Bxd5 a6 32.Rxa5! The ref stopped the fight, there was blood all over the place. 1-0

This was a dominating performance. I feel like every game I play is better than my last. Garingo still beats me in blitz because I play "Romantic Era" chess when I play blitz, but I think that going 2-0 against him in consecutive weeks humbled him a little bit. (I don't think I'll have to see 1 e4 2 c5 3 Qh4 again...)

Many thanks to Lev Psakhis for his amazing work on the French. I have cited some lines (9 h4 is not analyzed anywhere and has only been played by masters twice in my database) from his 250 page text on 3 Nc3 Bb4 briefly (I cannot emphasize enough how briefly, the final chapter of his book is 24 pages dedicated to 7 Qg4 0-0).

Fun line against the King's Indian Attack

2007-12-07T19:00:00.000-08:00

Here's a cool line....

I got paired with Garingo last night (I finally got White)! The rivalry continues. I will post the game when I'm done with it, I feel like I've been holding out on you guys somewhat because I usually don't publish most of the stuff I saw during the game, let alone all that I see after the game. So the next post will be a more thorough analysis.

The Other Blog

2007-12-07T16:40:00.000-08:00

In response to LEP's post this morning, which is about a challenge of the week to write something political, I have added a long-winded post to my other blog which can be read here.

Chess and Drugs

2007-12-06T16:08:00.000-08:00

A lot of people have written on the topic of drugs and art and judging by the habits of some of the greatest artists of all time (The Beatles, Grateful Dead, Jimi, Janis, Nirvana, Sublime, William Burroughs, Ken Kesey, etc.), drugs, specifically LSD and Heroin, seem to unleash some creative fury.

So the logical question is, how does this apply to chess?

Drugs did not have a negative effect on the technical ability of these artists, and somehow changed their view to allow for a greater creative ability.

What would happen if a group of Super-GMs started taking LSD or Heroin?

I think some very interesting and beautiful chess would follow.

Chess Variants!?

2007-12-05T14:43:00.000-08:00

So I decided that I would find a good image and use it to inspire a post. Being the retard that I am, I just typed "chess" in Google Image Search. Well, you get a lot of bullshit back. And nothing even remotely inspiring. But then I come across the picture above and I'm like what the fuck is that?

Have you ever heard of Hexagon Chess? And if you think that's fucked up, check out Dunsany's Chess, where one side has a normal set up and the other side gets 32 pawns! Who the fuck is playing these games? Maybe we could start playing a variant (check out wikipedia's list of chess variants) and develop a whole new opening theory. We could have variations named after us and everything...

And we could all wear this shirt...

Leonid Stein

2007-12-04T00:52:00.001-08:00

So if you've been following this blog you know that I have tried to focus my studies recently on positional sacrifices (mainly pawn and exchange, since these are the most common). What is cool about the approach to studying I laid out last post, is that oftentimes there will be similar themes throughout. For instance, in studying old masters I am around the year 1965 (I've been going in order) and this is the time of Spassky, Petrosian, Tal, Larsen, Kortchnoi was just coming up, and then there's this guy Stein, who is not quite like the rest. He didn't become a master til age 24 but then made a serious run at the world title.  Anyways, the point is I am looking at his
games and he makes these positional sacs that today are still pretty impressive, in his time they
must have been unthinkable...  He's pretty cool though, and it's good timing that I am trying to
learn themes that he invented.  Like look at his 18th move in this game.

New Look; New Study Plan

2007-12-03T13:10:00.000-08:00

I changed my site, I know you hadn't noticed. Thought I would spice it up a little bit. Let me know how I did. I added a recent comments, which is sweet.

My new study plan is one that I've used before, it has four parts:

Openings - 1-2 variations per week, this is a vague section and one I'm not really focused on right now, my repertoire is good.

Middlegame - 7 hrs/wk, Secrets of Chess Transformations by Marovic, which is focused on positional sacrifices

Endgame - 6 hrs/wk, Winning Endgame Technique by Alexander Beliavsky and Adrian Mikhalchischin

History - 3-5 gms/day, right now I am at Stein and Spassky and I am studying from My Great Predecessors, Volume 3 by Kasparov

This is the plan, I'll let you know how well I actually keep it.

Dragon Main Line 9 0-0-0 d5!

2007-12-02T20:30:00.000-08:00

or The Story of My Last Post...

How I found this position at home...

One year before the game I posted last we had played the same line for the first 14 moves. This was his pet line and I cannot speak for him but even if I was trying to learn a new line I'm pretty sure I would go into my Dragon if I was on board one at a serious tournament. Also, I had seen him play the Dragon in an earlier round so I was pretty sure he would play it.

After our game the year before I had shown this game to Shulman, he was not that familiar with the line but we went over it in some detail and we learned that this opening is about Black's a5 and e5 pawns, which are serious weaknesses and are easy targets. Basically Black has to try to create enough counterplay to provoke White to take on a weakness or otherwise compromise his positional advantage. So I knew this already, but I was not that sure of the exact lines, I knew to move 19 or so. But pretty much the ideas for counterplay have been tested and there is a consensus on the optimal development of forces and this is where it leads. 25.gxf6 attacks the e-pawn at the cost of the knight and doubled pawns, if there were a good answer to this move for Black one of the chess giants would have taken it up in the last 10 years, instead they are forced to find other moves. I did not use Fritz at all, and I didn't go past the moves that were already played and recommended by Golubev in Experts vs. the Sicilian and Rogozenko on his 2-volume CD on the Dragon. The Dragon is probably one of the hardest openings to learn, against Garingo I am looking at lines 15-20 moves deep but he deviates from this line on move 9 and the positions are very different.

This book Experts vs. the Sicilian suggests that this line (all the way to move 25) should be the main line of the Dragon (with 9 0-0-0, 9 Bc4 is different). This book is extremely good, it is a compilation of authors who play the various lines of the Sicilian. For instance Golubev has recently completed a book on the Dragon and has played it for years, and he is writing the article on the White side of the Dragon, it's interesting to see the lines he thinks are objectively good for White.

Here's some of the analysis I had. I probably looked at 30 games too just to get a feel for the position and the endgame.

Endgame Magic

2007-12-02T15:19:00.000-08:00

After three games of the WSO I was 3-0 and it was pretty easy to narrow down the pairings. I was going to play Ethan Peake, who I had played exactly one year before in Round 5 of the 2006 WSO, and I was going to have White, just like last year. Last year we had played a very popular line of the Dragon and we both figured we would play the same way this year. I went home and looked at the line pretty intensely for a couple hours, figuring that if I had to play something else I probably wasn't losing anything by prepping this line. We followed a game for 25 moves, I honestly used 2 minutes for my first 25 moves of this game. But then it got really interesting. And the tactic that finally seals the endgame is pretty instructive.

This post is for likesforests and Ernie, this ending is crazy...

Underestimated

2007-11-30T23:58:00.000-08:00

So, the match is over I guess, after this game Garingo said that the game 2 weeks earlier was just a practice game. We got paired in the normal tournament, something tells me soapstone played with the pairings... but nonetheless, we got the same colors we were due to have.
It's nice to be underestimated every once in a while. Garingo decided to avoid any preparation and played an absurd opening, hoping that I would forget how to play chess. My notes are extensive, but there are very few variations, this was a strategic battle and I showed very good depth and built a strong initiative from very little. In tournament play against Garingo I am now 2-1 and I have had Black all three games. I hope he is realizing that I am at least on his level.

So this helped save my rating after the disaster last round. I only lost 3 points, I'm up 100 since I moved back to Reno in July, not bad at all. Also Garingo got set back from 2173 to 2105 so maybe I will be able to catch him and win the race to master. I hope to make expert in the next few months, I may have to travel down to LA for the tournament MLK weekend to score some points.

Thanks LEP for the Chess Publisher Tips!

Side Note: Mamedyarov is on the ropes after losing his first game... I hope he can pull it out.

Best game in the history of chess?!

2007-11-30T16:19:00.000-08:00

So I was reading a Chesscafe Book Review about the new book on Kasparov by Tibor Karolyi and Nick Alpin (I have their book on Karpov and it is very good) and the author mentions that Kasparov-Topalov, Wijk Ann Zee 1999 is probably the best game of Kasparov's career or "even in the history of chess". So of course I went to my database to look it up (I've seen it before I'm sure, it's in Stohl's book too, Stohl's annotations are in Chessbase). And it is quite a game. Kasparov's intuition is almost incomprehensible (apparently even to Topalov) and he sacs a rook and then a knight with very little apparent compensation and no end in sight. Just wondering what you guys think about the thought of a "best game in history" and this Kasparov game.

If you play the Najdorf, please at least know what you're doing....

2007-11-30T10:36:00.000-08:00

I would say the majority of games that I play in the Open Sicilian are played in the Najdorf. So I know the themes pretty well. If you want to play this opening for Black, learn it, or else this will happen:

Now this was a Scheveningen and I played 6.Bg5 by accident (I play 6.g4, the Keres Attack), and Black could have punished this by playing h6 but by move 9 we were in a Najdorf that I know all too well. Black can play Be7 or b5 here, but not Rb8. These lines are too fragile to be playing unnecessary moves.

All this talk of technique on BDK's post makes me sad I missed 15.Qh5 mate but it is blitz what are you going to do...

Game Day

2007-11-29T10:56:00.000-08:00

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.

Midday Ramble

2007-11-28T12:39:00.000-08:00

So... Radjabov lost today to lose the match 2-0, he is the highest seed (3) to get knocked out so far and although I did not expect that much out of him in this tournament, I was really surprised to see him get crushed like this by someone over 100 points lower than him. Ponomariov lost yesterday and today had Black. The game looked very drawish but he was able to win, so looks like he will go through (he will win the playoff).

Other than that my IT guy was going through the programs on my computer at work and he's like "What's Dasher?" and I was like "I use it." hoping he would leave it at that, but he figured out it was for chess and deleted it... So no more ICC at work I guess... That sucks.

December Madness

2007-11-27T12:35:00.000-08:00

LEP brought up that there is no betting but, like March Madness, there is the potential for some impressive upsets. But then I started thinking... there's a bracket available on the Fide website... We should start a pool!! This round did see a couple upsets in the first game, young Radjabov avoided his normal Pelikan Sicilian and got trounced in the offbeat Ruy Lopez Schliemann, guess the experiment failed. Ponomariav lost again... which puts a lot of pressure on him. And poor Carlsen couldn't even get his pieces out (with White!) and by the time he did the game was equal and he was held to a draw.

Mamedyarov cruised to a win. Shulman drew Shirov with White, the other Americans won (Kamsky with Black!!). Some interesting games... this tournament is growing on me. I still say that with fewer players and more rounds per match it would be more interesting though.

I am serious about the pool, I think it would be cool to fill out some brackets and see who we put in the final four... even if there is no money involved.

Found a rhythm...

2007-11-26T21:00:00.000-08:00

So... I think I ended the slump. I played three games today, all pretty quick, and scored 2.5. The first game was a draw, if you saw my earlier post where I said I have only scored 16 draws in over 270 rated USCF games then you know this is a rarity. And I made this sucker work hard for this draw. I had a nice position, my knight was much better than his bishop, but he got me to trade. Then we were in a queen ending, then a pawn ending, then another queen ending, and I thought I would be able to pull something off the whole time but no, he earned his draw. Then the next game I was going to lose! But I found my game...

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nge2 e5 6.d3 Nge7 7.Be3 d6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.Bh6 f5 10.h4 Nd4 11.Nxd4 cxd4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Qe7 14.h5 Bd7 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.0-0-0 Rac8 17.Bxg7 Qxg7 18.Rh6 Rc5 19.Rdh1

This position is so bad... I had originally thought that I could get away with Qxh8 and getting two rooks for the queen. But now that I am faced with the prospect of Rh8 I see the following... 19...Rfc8 20 Rh8+ Qh8 21 Rh8 Kh8 22 Qh6 and I am cooked. If only I could get Be8 and Rfc8 in I would be ok... or....

19...f4!! These kinds of moves end my slumps. This is a beautiful move, since the only problem in my position is the Queen coming to the h-file, I simply prevent it, and now I can carry on my attack and we end up in a good bishop vs. bad bishop endgame which white gets thoroughly lost in.

20.Rh8+ Qxh8 21.Rxh8+ Kxh8 22.gxf4 Rfc8 23.fxe5 Rxc2+ 24.Qxc2 Rxc2+ 25.Kxc2 dxe5 26.Be4 g5 27.Kb3 b6 28.Kb4 Kg7 29.Kc4 Kf6 30.b4 Ke7 31.Bg6 a6 32.f3 Kd6 33.Bf7 Bb5+ 34.Kb3 Bxd3 35.a4 Be2 36.Bh5 Kxd5 37.Bf7+ Kd6 38.Bc4 Bxf3 39.Bxa6 Bd1+ 40.Ka3 g4 41.Bd3 g3 42.Bf1 Bf3 43.a5 bxa5 44.bxa5 g2 0-1

After this game I felt pretty good and I took a break to look at a couple Kasparov pawn sacrifices from Chess Strategy in Action. Then I made an exchange sacrifice in my last game of the day...

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 Qc7 7.Bd3 Nf6 8.0-0 Bd6 9.f4 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bxf4 11.Bxf6 Bxh2+ 12.Kh1 gxf6 13.Rxf6 Be5 14.Qf3!? I figured that Black losing the right to castle and the weak Bishop were adequate compensation.

14... Bxf6 15.Qxf6 Rg8 16.Rf1 d6 17.e5 Qe7

Black figures he can simplify and be OK, that I was relying on my attack to be compensation. But no! I was ready to exchange Queens, my activity is compensation (a theme of positional sacrifices, my work is paying dividends).

18.Qxe7+ Kxe7 19.exd6+ Kxd6 20.Rxf7 Bd7 21.Ne4+ Kc7? This is an ugly move, now White is just winning

22.Nc5 Rad8 23.Nxe6+ Kc8 24.Nxd8 Kxd8 25.Rxh7 Bc6 26.Rh2 Re8 27.Kg1 Re1+ 28.Kf2 Ra1 29.a3 Ra2 30.Rh8+ Ke7 31.Rh7+ Kf6 32.Rf7+ Kg5 33.Rf5+ Kh6 34.g4 Rxb2 35.g5+ Kg7 36.Re5 Ra2 37.g6 Rxa3 38.Re7+ Kf8 39.g7+ Kxe7 40.g8Q Kd6 41.Qg6+ Kc5 42.Qf5+ Kb6 43.Qe6 Ra5 44.Ke3 Rc5 45.c4 a5 46.Kd4 a4 47.Qd6 Ra5 48.Qb4+ Ka7 49.Be4 Kb8 50.Bxc6 Kc8 51.Qxb7+ Kd8 52.Qd7# 1-0 Mate with 0.4 seconds to spare... close call but a smooth win.

Beginning with 19...f4 I was ready to bring some creative solutions to the table and to think in more abstract terms. And it produced results. I need to study more...

Knockout, eh?

2007-11-26T12:29:00.001-08:00

I personally think that the knockout in Khanty-Mansiysk is one of the worst high level tournaments that there is. Why are there 128 players? Here is the first round http://cup2007.fide.com/results.asp. Aside from a couple upsets, pretty much what you would expect. The higher seeds getting through easily. I know that they want to experiment with different formats than the double round robin, but I would still rather see just the top 16 players go at it.

That being said I am rooting heavily for Mamedyarov, who has captured my attention in the past year and has been playing very good chess. I think that Ivanchuk, who did have a spectacular year, has collapsed (look at his more recent results) and will go down easily in the next few rounds. Carlsen is getting better very quickly but I do not think this is his year. Of course Svidler, Grishy, and Aronian should never be counted out and Shirov had a good performance in the Tal Memorial (relative to Kramnik's sheer dominance of that tournament). Anyways, the later rounds should be interesting but until then this tournament sucks.

I almost forgot to congratulate Yuri Shulman (my old coach) for getting to the second round.

Who Needs Sleep?

2007-11-25T07:45:00.000-08:00

I woke up at 3:45 this morning half-hungover with really bad cottonmouth. I stumbled downstairs to grab two bottles of water, turned on some music (the silence was deafening), drank one of the bottles and figured I had just prevented a worse hangover when I woke up. But then the album ended and my mouth felt drier than the reading material for a statistics class. I got up and started browsing the internet while I drank the second bottle, then my eyes wandered to the board I have next to my computer. At the board was the end of a game, but last night when I was looking at it (very briefly) I thought Black was a little premature in resigning and I wasn't sure that I would even be able to enter into such a risky variation with White. But surely enough, at 5:00 AM, in the dark, with an annoying headache and slight nausea the variations poured out and Black is mated in all lines. Chess is weird like that.

WTF?

2007-11-23T23:45:00.000-08:00

So, this happened on Wednesday and I'm already over it but I still think it's funny. The other day when I said that I was going to get on ICC and murder some people I won my first two games and then there wasn't a good standard seek so I hit that stupid green button and waited for a five minute game. ICC has separate ratings for the five-minute pool and blitz, I'm like 1800 blitz and 1550-1600 five-minute, and I get paired against a 1700 and I'm like cool no problem right. So then after a few moves I look at his name and it has IM in front of it and I'm like damn... this isn't going to be as easy as I thought. So I find out after the game that he is 2780 in regular blitz, that's only 1000 points on me, no big deal... His name is Olivier Simon, he's from France, he's a douchebag.

Here's how it went down. He played the Rossolimo variation against my Sicilian. This is a pretty popular Anti-Sicilian so I have looked at the lines in some detail. One of the themes is that the knight goes from g8 to f6 to d7 to f8 to e6 before you castle because awkwardly enough you have time and this is the fastest way to get it in. So for the first 12 or so moves my play was book. Then he says "it's easy?" which I don't know what that means, he's French so maybe he thinks it means something. Then later he says that it's easy to learn an opening but that my play after that was horrible and that I need to learn to play not learn openings. I spend very little time studying openings, I just look up lines that I'm in and continuously develop around them. That's how I found that idea in the first place. But anyways, coming from a normal player I would just shrug that off and laugh but I really don't think IMs should act like that. Then he just leaves. So I was like wtf??? And I went to Fritz to see how "badly" I played. I hold a slight advantage for the first 30 moves, and my theory definitely doesn't go that deep... Then I made a mistake and lost 10 moves later. But wtf?? He wasn't even winning. And this is five-minute, what does real play have to do with five-minute. I hope I meet this guy OTB sometime. I have made beating him OTB one of my chess goals. Then I can be like we played online and you told me to learn to play so I did! :)

One more video... OK two.

2007-11-21T11:38:00.000-08:00

At work me and the girl in the cubicle next to me use Yahoo Messenger to pass jokes and links and what not. Anyways after I finished my last post she hit me up with another good video so I decided to share. Cause I have just found the one true love of my life.

Keytar Solo (I accidentally posted the link below originally, but I fixed it. So if you didn't see this yet, click this NOW)

And then when I was typing this one more, but last one I promise:

Best Guinness Commercial Ever Made

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

A day off...

2007-11-21T11:07:00.000-08:00

So, I got bored by going out this weekend and aside from work I've basically been cooped up in my room since Friday looking at chess (watching movies and playing some xbox too). Yesterday I didn't do any work after I got home (while I was at work I was looking at a game played by Samurai Pawn for a while) and I just went and hung out with a friend. It was a nice break; but definitely a short one. I can't get away from a board at this point. I was so eager to get back I wanted to look at some positions before work but I never have enough time. So needless to say I'm looking forward to some quality time with a board this long weekend. I should also start keeping track of what I'm doing, so I don't end up reading 7 different books at once. Maybe I'll murder some people on ICC to get my standard rating back over 2000. It's under 1900, which is unacceptable.

Thanksgiving Bonus: Crazy Japanese Video