ChessgamesofChrisAmmons

2010-09-08T12:32:00.000-07:00

Well, why not start posting my chess games on here. This one doesn't need much commentary. Opponent makes mistake on the opening, I take advantage and hold the advantage winning on time.

[WhiteElo "1448"]
[BlackElo "1439"]
[Time "15:00"]
[TimeControl "15 min"]

1. d4 b6 2. Nf3 Bb7 3. g3 h6 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. d5 Nb4 6. c4 c6 7. a3 Na6 8. Nc3 cxd5 9. cxd5 b5 10. Nxb5 Qa5+ 11. Nc3 Bxd5 12. Qxd5 Qxd5 13. Nxd5 e6 14. Nf4 Nf6 15. Ne5 d5 16. O-O Bd6 17. Nc6 O-O 18. b4 Rfc8 19. b5 Nc5 20. Be3 a6 21. Bxc5 Bxc5 22. a4 Rc7 23. Nd3 Bd4 24. Nxd4 axb5 25. Nxb5 Rc4 26. a5 Rc2 27. e3 Ne4 28. Bxe4 dxe4 29. Ne5 Rb2 30. Nd6 Ra7 31. Nxe4 f5 32. Nd6 Ra6 33. Nec4 Rc2 34. Rfd1 Kf8 35. Kf1 Ke7 36. Nc8+ Kf6 37. Rdc1 1-0

Overconfidence problems, attack and counterattack

2010-07-21T12:28:00.000-07:00

Chess improvement is enjoyable, eerily too enjoyable too me. At best chess is enriching and challenging, at its worst I am no more no less than a kid who goes home from school and plays video games all day. The paradox I can't get find a solution to is this: for the amount of time I've spent at chess I'm rather good, but objectively speaking I have nothing near thea bility of a professional and very likely never will.

When I loose a game I can feel grumpy, stupid, and have a sort of mental pain, when I win a game there is a feeling of real strength. That feeling is nice. My win/loss ratio is about 50/50 ... at this level of chess I'm playing at (1400-1500) victory is often determined either by exploiting blunders or whoever goes into the match with more energy and motivation to win - couldn't that be said for chess at any level though?

My games get better, at least the games when I'm in a sharp mental state. My strategy for chess improvement is tactical improvement, which means looking at tactical puzzles and solving them. Solving the same problem in 30 seconds compared to 90 seconds is a huge improvement, I think ... speed of calculation matters. I play games at 15, 20, or 30 minutes for each side ... and the 30 minute games I definitely have the freedom to play better moves. How can I put it for the possible readers of this chess blog that are much better than me? A 10 minute game must be what a 1 minute game is to expert class or strong tournament player. The fast games are fun but consumptive and probably don't do much to improve chess ability. Feels like I improve most when I have a lengthy time to think, when I make my move with a certainty that it is a good decision, solid reasons behind the moves.

Here is a game I played on chesscube, 30 minutes each, my rating 1417, my opponents 1469 ... well matched opponnents. Purpose here is not so much to show off or boast but to provide an interesting inside to readers how my mind works at chess at this level of ability. I am white, opponent black.

1. d4 d5

At this level of play kings pawn openings are far more common. Advantage of queens pawn openings is that opponents are less comfortable with them. All else being equal I do feel like I play better chess accumulating positional advantages than making an aggressive attack - but I have started to play kings gambit!

2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3

Queens gambit accepted, rather comfortable with this oppening though I like to play QGD much more.

b5

A bad move. I've exploited the error succesfully in several games before and gain confidence I can make a winning position from his mistake.

4. a4 b4 5. e4 e6 6. Bxc4

Is there a better move than to take the pawn back immediately? Qc2 or Nd2 perhaps? Feeling crude, but perhaps playing correctly (?) I take the pawn back and breathe a sigh of relief having (at least) equalized correctly.

6. ... a5 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bg5

Very confident in the position at this point. Opponent is behind in development and I think of attacking the pinned Knight.

8. ... h6

Decision time. 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10 e5 leaves me with iniative and control of the center. This would have been better than the decision I made to retreat the bishop. If opponent attacks bishop with g5 then the king has no pawn safety if it castles on either side ... and if he doesn't advance to attack bishop the pin is maintained and I can attack the pinned piece with e5. ... Typical mistake I made here that must occur at all levels, instead of moving based on a concrete calculation I make decisions or more abstract judgement.

9. Bh4 g5 10. Bg3 Nxe4

Ouch. That nf6 attacked the e4 pawn never came to my mind! Regular mistake, not taking time to think of opponents plans. Down a center pawn now I begin fearing I have just lost the game. Stronger player than I would have understood in a flash that the knight attacked the e pawn.

11. Be5 f6 12. Qc2

Feeling desparate in the following moves, I try to create a difficult position. A good plan I believe, if in a losing position try to create a difficult position where opponent has more reasonable chance of making mistake.

12 ... Nxf2

My opponenent perhaps afflicted with the most human overconfidence captures pawn, and probably expects I'll capture back, then he'll take my bishop and come out ahead in material ... but checking queen allows gain of tempo and attack

13. Qg6+ Kd7

14. Qf7+ Better would have been Bf6 attacking the queen, Ne5+

Kc6 15. Bb5+ Kb7 16. Rc1? fxe5

Adding a new attacker, but allowing opponent to remove another, much better would have been to attack queen with Bf7

17. Nxe5 Qe7

Probably seeing no concrete continuation black hopes to exchange queens - the general principle being attacks on the king usually fail without the queen

18. Qf3+ c6

Which is best to continue attack? Also possible to be satisfied with gain in material by taking the Knight or winning the exchange, but dissolving attack and back to "normal" play with difficulty activating queenside rook.

19. Bxc6+ Nxc6 20. Qxc6+ Ka7 21. Ng6 ?

Perhaps overconfident and relaxed I satisfy myself winning a questionable exchange - giving my opponent huge counterattack. Hasn't my opponent been thinking all this time about a counterattack if he had the chance? Much better would have been Qb5 and Nc6 continuing the attack and leading to material gain.

Qf6 22. Nxh8 Qxd4 23. Qc7+ Bb7 24. Qc2?

Computer analyses shows this gives opponent forced mate. Was blind to the simple check and capture on a5

Nd3+ 25. Kh1 Nxc1 26. Qxc1 Qxh8

With Black ahead in material, unable to activate the rook and back rank problem I am accepting that I am going to loose this game. Checking merely hoping something might come up.

27. Qe3+ Kb8 28. Ra2 Opponenet has no easy victory from the position

Bd5 29. Qb6+ Kc8 30. b3 Rb8?

Again, overconfidence probably explains move like this, blind to how it enables me to activate my rook.

31. Rc2+ I have a forced mate suddenly

Kd7 32. Rc7+ Kd8 33. Qxb8# 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 b5 4. a4 b4 5. e4 e6 6. Bxc4 a5 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. Bg3 Nxe4 11. Be5 f6 12. Qc2 Nxf2 13. Qg6+ Kd7 14. Qf7+ Kc6 15. Bb5+ Kb7 16. Rc1 fxe5 17. Nxe5 Qe7 18. Qf3+ c6 19. Bxc6+ Nxc6 20. Qxc6+ Ka7 21. Ng6 Qf6 22. Nxh8 Qxd4 23. Qc7+ Bb7 24. Qc2 Nd3+ 25. Kh1 Nxc1 26. Qxc1 Qxh8
27. Qe3+ Kb8 28. Ra2 Bd5 29. Qb6+ Kc8 30. b3 Rb8 31. Rc2+ Kd7 32. Rc7+ Kd8 33. Qxb8# 1-0

Improvement

2010-07-04T13:25:00.001-07:00

[Time "15:00"]
[TimeControl "15 min"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. c3 c4 5. Ngf3 Nf6 6. e5 Ne4 7. b3 Nxc3 8. Qc2 Nb5 9. bxc4 dxc4 10. Bxc4 a6 11. Bxb5+ axb5 12. O-O Nc6 13. Qb2 Ra5 14. Nb3 Ba3 15. Qd2 Ra4 16. Bxa3 Rxa3 17. Qb2 Ra4 18. Nc5 Nxd4 19. Nxa4 Nxf3+ 20. gxf3 Qg5+ 21. Kh1 Qf4 22. Qxb5+ Bd7 23. Qxb7 Ke7 24. Nb6 Rd8 25. Rad1 Qxe5 26. Nxd7 Qa5 27. Nb8+ Ke8 28. Nc6 Qa8 29. Rxd8+ Qxd8 30. Nxd8 Kxd8 31. Rd1+ Ke8 32. Rc1 Kd8 33. Rc8# 1-0

Fun

2010-07-04T12:29:00.001-07:00

[Event "ChessCube Game"]
[Site "www.chesscube.com"]
[Date "2010.07.04"]
[Round "-"]
[White "alkansonata@chesscube.com"]
[Black "flagosm@chesscube.com"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1392"]
[BlackElo "1362"]
[ECO "D06"]
[Time "15:00"]
[TimeControl "15 min"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Bf5 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. Qa4+ c6 5. Qxc4 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. e4 Bg6 8. Bd3 Nf6 9. Bg5 O-O 10. O-O h6 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. a4 Qd7 13. a5 Rd8 14. Ne2 e5 15. dxe5 Bxe5 16. Nxe5 Qe6 17. Qxe6 fxe6 18. Nf4 Rxd3 19. Nexd3 Bxe4 20. Ne5 g5 21. Nxe6 Na6 22. Rfd1 Kh7 23. Rd7+ Kg8 24. Rg7+ Kh8 25. Nf7# 1-0

Competetive Chess and Coffeeshop Chess

2010-06-18T12:29:00.000-07:00

A few months playing chess on chesscube I've reached a rating of 1449 - sometimes gets a little higher, sometimes lower - feels nice to know the number is an accurate measurement of ability. Can assume also that it'd be pretty similar to an official rating (maybe that'd be 1425 or 1375 or 1475 is beside the point). A player at 1550 in good form I can play competetively on a good day, not much higher than that. 1300-1400's I beat consistentlyl and unless something is pathetic in me a 1200-1300 isn't going to stand a chance.

The challenge for me at this level is more of mindset than knowledge, having a mind to calmly see variations ... not rushing to make a move. Result of which my play is rather slow indeed and often I must bore my competitors to bits - but I don't care, it's all for the win, it's all for the improvement. Improving calculating ability is the main correllate with improvement ... and analyzing the games afterwards.

I grow less and less fond of coffeeshop chess mainly because I am not very good at it. Haven't I just written about this? I know. I'll start up a game with guys I like, I know I am the stronger player and my chess ability is a leap above theirs. I'll go into the game with an overconfidence which my motivated opponents of course are quick to exploit. Playing without the clock is unpleasant, unless risking a pompous asshole it just isn't possible to stare at the board for five minutes until the correct path appears in my mind. Unlike when I am playing in my smelly somewhat disorganized room I am too attuned to the social environ (and often am playing a chess game when that isn't what I want to do). Like poor Waitzkin I can be thinking more about how I look than what chess I am playing - whether I even realize it or not! The positions aren't very interesting because I can't think about them in the solitude I like to, sometimes moves that appear rather interesting to my opponents, but maybe knowing more about chess than them I see how error-ridden the positions are. Can't underestimate my opponents, their minds are probably more geared to chess than I - I who never played any sport until chess, who had to wait until late twenties to develop a competetive sportsmanlike attitude. The fantasy of being such an overwhelmingly strong player to crush casual opponents without having to think is that, at least until I'm able to improve another 100-200 rating points. Definitely no ability at speed chess of any sort - my mind can pull together the right moves, or reasonable moves, but it takes time, precious precious time.

Beginning To Attack

2010-05-28T13:44:00.000-07:00

Honestly Chess terrifies me sometimes. When I was 16 I got addicted to Ultima Online and played it as much as I could, hardly ever doing anything else, for like a year of my life. I'm afraid the poet in me is receding and I'm becoming a chess zombie. Eh, at least I'm getting better at chess. I'm studying the King's Gambit. I've had a chance to play it in two competetive games. Game one I make a basic Kings Gambit Blunder, the most archetypical opening disaster there can be ... game two goes better and I am able to put together an attack, and a victory after my opponent blunders.

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bc5 5. d4 Bb4 6. Bxf4 O-O 7. Ng5 d6 8. Qf3 Nc6 9. Rd1 Bg4 10. Qg3 Bxd1 11. Bc4 Bxc3+ 12. bxc3 d5 13. Bxd5 Nxd5 14. exd5 Bh5 15. Qd3 g6 16. dxc6 Qe7+ 17. Be3 Rae8 18. Kd2 b6 19. h3 f5 20. Rf1 f4 21. Rxf4 Qxg5 22. Rxf8+ Rxf8 23. Bxg5 1-0

Understanding Grandmaster Chess ... Understanding Middlegames

2010-05-27T13:48:00.000-07:00

After writing on here a little while ago about how unpragmatic studying grandmaster chess games are to chess improvement I ignored what I wrote (my mind wasn't in the best condition, so I assigned it this less weighty task) and started studying grandmaster chess games with Nunn's "Understanding Chess." This book is as much a gem as a gem can be, takes the mystery out of how chess is played at the highest level. The more chess literature I read the easier it is for me. Took about a week to go through all the games in the "middle game themes" section, sometimes my understanding much lucid than other times ... I'm planning to read through the book more than a few times in my life of course, and this is just the first one. Of course I cannot understanding the variations, or even conceive of most of them at this point ... but I found that if I focused my mind and took the necessary time I could see the variations occur on my chessboard without having to move the pieces.

The main reward so far is acheiving a much deeper understanding of the end-game. For anyone reading who doesn't know it works like this - you stop thinking like "what move am I going to make next" and start thinking (1) what plan am I going to formulate next and will this plan work or will this plan fail. ... and you continue to do that again and again." Your opponent makes moves and you also think "why did he move this, what is his plan?" ... I've had to play chess for about a year to be able to do this! Not that I wasn't aware of the neccessity before, but I simply hadn't built enough chess into my brain to be able to do it with cognitive efficiency.

Which part of chess to study, the opening, middlegame, or end-game. I've seen many good arguments about emphasizing end-game study, but to meet it seems logical (almost obvious) that the middle-game is the most important to study ... because in most chess games the endgame takes up the most time and neccesitates the largest amount of brute thought (at the level of play where I am at at least, for experts, class A players, masters etc this may not be as true and endgames could have their grater importance, I couldn't say.) And of course, middlegame is strategy, tactics, position, sacrifices, etc etc ... anyway I'm happy to have improved my middlegame and want to show you two games I played and won today with the black pieces. ... compared to the games I was playing and showing on here a few months ago I think you'd be impressed with the improvement in my skill level - let's be modest: chess is a virus that has infected my mind but I enjoy the challenge of it more than Sudoku

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Ng5 O-O 7. Nc3 Na5 8. Nd5 Nxc4 9. Nxf6+ Qxf6 10. dxc4 a6 11. Qh5 h6 12. Nf3 b5 13. cxb5 axb5 14. c3 b4 15. cxb4 Bxb4 16. a3 Ba5 17. Qh4 Qxh4 18. Nxh4 Bb7 19. Nf5 Bxe4 20. Ne7+ Kh7 21. g4 Rae8 22. Nf5 Bxf5 23. gxf5 g6 24. fxg6+ fxg6 25. f4 e4 26. b4 Bb6+ 27. Kg2 d5 28. a4 c5 29. a5 Ba7 30. bxc5 Bxc5 31. Rb1 Rb8 32. Bd2 Rxb1 33. Rxb1 e3 34. Bc3 g5 35. Rb7+ Kg6 36. Rg7+ Kf5 37. fxg5 hxg5 38. Kg3 d4 39. Be1 d3 40. h4 gxh4+ 41. Kxh4 Bd6 42. Rg5+ Ke4 43. Rg4+ Rf4 44. Bg3 Rxg4+ 45. Kxg4 Bxg3 46. Kxg3 d2 47. a6 d1=Q 48. a7 Qa1 49. a8=Q+ Qxa8 0-1

*

1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nf3 g6 4. Ne5 Nbd7 5. Bb5 c6 6. Bd3 Bg7 7. Qf3 O-O 8. Bd2 Qb6 9. b3 Qc7 10. Bc3 a6 11. g4 Nxe5 12. dxe5 Nxg4 13. h4 Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Bxe5 15. h5 Bxa1 16. hxg6 fxg6 17. Qg2 Bf5 18. e4 dxe4 19. Bc4+ e6 20. c3 b5 21. Rh2 Qxh2 22. Qxh2 bxc4 23. bxc4 Rab8 24. Na3 Bxc3+ 25. Kf1 Bb4 26. Nc2 Bc3 27. Na3 Rb2 28. Qg3 Bb4 29. Kg2 Rxa2 30. Qb3 Bh3+ 31. Kxh3 Rf3+ 32. Kh4 Rxb3 0-1

Grandmaster Chess and Beginner Chess

2010-05-21T13:33:00.000-07:00

I've been studying grandmaster chess games lately, John Nunn's "Understanding Chess Move by Move" is a work of sheer genius. I'm planning to read this book 3-5 times at least in my life. I am getting better. When I first read the games I hardly understood a thing and it took a long time. I've reached the point in my chess development where on a normal day I can take the time to form correct visual imagery of the variations. Perhaps in five years time I'll be able to read a book on chess at about the same pace I can read a novel?

Reading and understanding grandmaster games is somewhat daunting. Not just watching the moves but taking the time to understand the different possibilities ... the intricacy and incredible chess knowledge that goes through the minds of the grandmasters as they play. ... How a move that wouldn't even look like a mistake to me (or even a A level tournament player) creates a losing position just like that. ... Karpov has become almost as much a hero as Kasparov and Korchnoi's personality lives in my mind as well - such a great feeling.

I feel less incilned to play chess as I study these games. I see the limits of improvement of "trying to figure it out myself." If I wanted to understand rocket science would I try to understand it by myself? But of course playing chess games is neccessary part of chess improvement, stating the obvious to allow myself to unobviously state what is not obvious three times in a sentence.

*

I've shied away from coffeeshop chess. Not popular, people might think I think I am better, and oops, word gets around that I make incredibly bad moves. It's not that I think I'm chessically better than my coffeeshop opponents, it's that I want to do the most to improve my chess game. Playing a chess game is like composing a poem, and I don't particularly want to spend time writing a bad poem in Russian language, I'd do better to study up on my Russian, you know.

Some other problems with coffeeshop chess: (1) no time controls. Playing chess to a clock definitely adds an objectivity to the game. (2) I like my opponents. My friendly feelings hinder my play. Too socially reactive, the actor in me takes over parts of my mind, instead of chess. So I'm enjoying playing chess alone in my room over the internet where most of my opponents probably do not understand much English language at all. (I'm going to find a way to add PGN viewer so these games can be viewed, at this point I really don't think anyone is interested in them, I just understand them better by writing about them)

[White "alkansonata@chesscube.com"]
[Black "tamilan100@chesscube.com"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1308"]
[BlackElo "1356"]
[TimeControl "30 min"]

1. e4 h5 2. d4 h4 3. Nc3 c6 4. Bc4 b5 5. Bb3 d5 6. Qf3 dxe4 7. Qxf7+ Kd7 8. Qe6+ Kc7 9. Qe5+ Kb7 10. Qxe4 h3 11. g3 Nf6 12. Qf3 Bg4 13. Qd3 Nd5 14. f3 Nb4 15. Qe4 Bxf3 16. Nxf3 e5 17. Nxe5 Qe7 18. a3 Nd5 19. Nxd5 cxd5 20. Bxd5+ Ka6 21. Bxa8 Nd7 22. Bb7+ 1-0

I'm proud to feel comfortable with king and queen pawns games. Kings Pawn games shorter, tactical, aggressive. Queens pawn games more strategic and positional.

The h5 h4 oppening of my opponent is ridiculous but I haven't dealt with it many times so I don't know quite how to respond. My mind was a bit thrown off being allowed the e4 .. d4 center.

Not very impressed with my opponent, I develop my bishop to c4 hoping for a quick win attacking f7. Queen goes to f3, opponent doesn't see the threat. I lay in my bed and try to do a precise calculation of a mating attack.

Rather crudely I give another check with the queen. Developing the dark squared bishop would have been better and the tactical variation the analysis shows me winning a queen by a deflection with the darks quared bishop. The attack gives him a pathetic position but he survives and counter play develops the bishop and the knight. ... He creates simple threats which are easy to meet and soon I am up a piece. Then win the rook. He resigns. Simple game. I'm pissed at myself cause I can do better than that.

Easy Win

2010-05-16T10:34:00.001-07:00

[White "kiro_d@chesscube.com"]
[Black "raincoatshero@chesscube.com"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1394"]
[BlackElo "1491"]
[Time "15:00"]
[TimeControl "15 min"]

1. e3 d5 2. Qf3 e5 3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. Nc3 e4 7. Qf4 exd3 8. Nxd5 Qxd5 9. Qa4+ Bd7 10. Qb4 Bxb4 11. a3 Be7 12. a4 Qxg2 0-1

One bad move loses the game

2010-05-16T07:34:00.000-07:00

[White "shaijun@chesscube.com"]
[Black "raincoatshero@chesscube.com"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1505"]
[BlackElo "1517"]
[ECO "B23"]
[Time "15:00"]
[TimeControl "15 min"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. h3 Nf6 4. Bc4 g6 5. Qf3 Bg7 6. d3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. Nge2 O-O 9. a3 a6 10. Bc4 b5 11. Bd5 b4 12. axb4 cxb4 13. Na4 Ne5 14. Qe3 Rc8 15. Nb6 Rxc2 16. Nxd7 Qxd7 17. O-O Nxd5 18. exd5 Qb5 19. Nd4 Rxc1 20. Nxb5 Rxa1 21. Rxa1 axb5 22. Qb6 Nd7 23. Qxb5 Bxb2 24. Rb1 Nc5 25. Rxb2 1-0

Dominant Positional Play

2010-05-15T11:28:00.000-07:00

Ah the differences in chess ability, the differences in general quality of mind. Whereas my previous opponent made a bad move in almost every move in the game, my opponent this game is someone who's style I respect, who understands the need to think through each move. Considering that it took my mind much longer to make my moves than his, he is very likely the better chess player. No less than Kasparov has said that more powerful learning occurs playing against three opponents who are stronger than you than three who are weaker.

Open with queens pawn. Delighted to play queens gambit, my favorite opening and the one I'm most comfortable with. Indeed what a stereotyped queens pawn game this is to me, full of positional advantages, action on the queenside, locked center.

Psychologically speaking, mistake on my part was perhaps trying to be too novel. On move 18 I move pawn f4 hoping to rook lift and attack on the kingside. Regret the move as it would have given a week pawn formation in the center. Computer analysis that the simple exchange of knights would have been preferable.

A few moves later opponent detects weakness on my queenside, moving my queen of the back rank hangs the b pawn and opponent establishes material advantage yet material equality is established again a few moves later. I have a space advantage and I'm up a pawn, but my knight is pinned in the corner.

Position arises where both our knights are in positions to fork queen and rook, and I have the first move. Fear of a superior position of his knight after the capture and general mental tepidness lead me to just defend from the fork. Analysis suggests it would have been better to begin the trade off with the iniative.

I set up a variation, rooks are exchanged, I connect my knights and have a passed pawn. What appears to be a dominant position. More or less at this point, my mind lost interest, perhaps a little fatigued, I thought out moves passively and lost. Simply not having the energy to maintain an activated interest is part of chess. My opponent with more chess experience likely used much less mental energy to maintain this level of game than me.

Sometimes you get a solid intuitive sense something bad is going to happen in a chess game. It has been, afterall, reliable established by now that most decisions have effectively been made before the conscious resolution to put them into action. I attack his bishop hoping that he take back and then queen b8+ kh7 Nf1+ .... false combination anyway. What I missed was the threat of mate on the back rank, opponents Knight controlling the f2 square. Qe1 and I am checkmated.

[White "raincoatshero@chesscube.com"]
[Black "aytekin3451@chesscube.com"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1581"]
[BlackElo "1494"]
[TimeControl "30 min + 30"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 h6 7. Bh4 c6 8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. c5 b6 10. b4 a5 11. a3 Nh7 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Qc2+ Kg8 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. cxb6 Nxb6 16. Ne5 Bb7 17. O-O Nd7 18. f4 Nf6 19. Rf3 axb4 20. Na4 Qd8 21. axb4 c5 22. bxc5 Qe8 23. Qb3 Qb8 24. Rff1 Ne4 25. Rfd1 Qc7 26. Nb6 Ra6 27. Rxa6 Bxa6 28. Nbd7 Rd8 29. Qa3 Ra8 30. Qb2 Qd8 31. Ra1 Qh4 32. Rxa6 Qe1# 0-1

Easy Win

2010-05-15T10:34:00.000-07:00

I met a guy a few months ago who told me with some pride that he spent time alone and became pretty good at chess, we begin the game and he opens with Nh6. Sometimes a win is just handed to you. Any grandmaster must have played 100 games identical or nearly identical this one in their chess career. I just find it a little funny.

[White "raincoatshero@chesscube.com"]
[Black "lamster@chesscube.com"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1564"]
[BlackElo "1450"]
[TimeControl "30 min"]

1. d4 Nh6 2. Bxh6 gxh6 3. e4 Rg8 4. Nf3 d6 5. g3 e5 6. dxe5 dxe5 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. Nxe5 Rg5 9. Nxf7+ Ke8 10. Nxg5 1-0

Repetition Of Mistakes - 4 Minus 1 For Rook Pawn - Ouch

2010-05-15T09:30:00.000-07:00

Same Chess mistakes happen to me again and again. Of course, the same msitakes in life too. Playing blitz chess for the first time shitfaced drunk is definitely a mistake, I of course loose each blitz game and my rating drops 100 points ... time for a new chesscube account. ... Chosing to identify as a "serious player" my rating starts at 1600 ... question is how much it will fall. Raincoatshero's first opponent was mnfe, not the slightest clue where in the world he is from, does it matter?

I do kings pawn game. He does Greco's opening. As usual no respect for his opening. By move 5 the positional advantage is mine. He takes my knight, I get the two bishops and I am eager to see if I can do something with this theoretical advantage (to me it is theoretical.) On move 11 I should have moved bishop g4 instead taking control of the open diagonal ... in the actual game I was a little too concerned with controlling the center files ... thinking in the box.

On move 11 my opponent makes a blunder typical for play at this level - moving a piece while not seeing that this move hangs pawn or piece. With bishop f6 he was knight. Like the last game I should have been more aggressive, bishop h5 moving the queen to h7, then capture a pawn and aggressively attack. In the game I think of how I must defend the knight.

I defend the knight with my queen (getting it off the back rank) and centralize my rook removing the pin on my knight. Reposition the knight, attack blacks queen (part of strategy is to work his mind more than mine, the idea being that the simple defense to something like this will expend his mental energy, and the knight is brought to a better square.)

Then the mistake that cost me the game. Capturing the hung pawn with my bishop, the queen rook pawn at that ... the idea being that an advantage will eventually accrue later in the game. Far too abstract itself. Common mistake at this level of play, what was worse was the obliviousness that the bishop was defending the knight on f4 .. clear as day two attackers, two defenders ... 4 minus 1 for rook pawn. Opponent notices and capitalizes on the mistake in no time at all. Far better would have been Nd3 attempting to exchange off his bishop and try to control the center files (uncastled king)

All downhill from there. I kept playing my best, felt like there was more in my mind making my moves than in his ... if he blundered I could have the game, that was my hope. No noticeable blunders on his part, material advantage eventually forces its meaning ... I resigned a few moves before checkmate.

[White "raincoatshero@chesscube.com"]
[Black "mnfe@chesscube.com"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1600"]
[BlackElo "1432"]
[TimeControl "30 min"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. d4 d6 4. Be2 h6 5. O-O Bg4 6. Be3 Bxf3 7. Bxf3 exd4 8. Bxd4 Qg6 9. Nc3 c6 10. b4 Be7 11. Be3 Bf6 12. Qd2 b5 13. Rad1 Be5 14. Ne2 Na6 15. Rfe1 Rd8 16. Nf4 Qf6 17. Bxa7 Bxf4 18. Bd4 Bxd2 19. Bxf6 Bxe1 20. Bxd8 Kxd8 21. Rxe1 Nxb4 22. Rd1 Kc7 23. c3 Nxa2 24. Ra1 Nxc3 25. Ra7+ Kb6 26. Rxf7 Rh7 27. Kf1 Nf6 28. Rf8 Nfxe4 29. Bxe4 Nxe4 30. Re8 d5 31. Re7 Nc3 32. f4 Ne4 33. Ke2 h5 34. Kf3 Nf6 35. f5 b4 36. h3 b3 37. g4 hxg4+ 38. hxg4 b2 39. Re1 Rh3+ 40. Kf4 Rh2 41. Kg5 d4 42. Kg6 d3 43. Kxg7 Nxg4 44. f6 Nxf6 45. Kxf6 Re2 46. Rb1 Rc2 47. Rh1 Rc1 48. Rh8 b1=Q 49. Rb8+ Kc5 50. Rxb1 Rxb1 51. Ke5 d2 52. Kf6 d1=Q 53. Ke5 Qe1+ 54. Kf6 Rb2 55. Kf5 Rf2+ 0-1

Time Constraints, Failure to covnert a winning position into a win, time and time and time again, yes, and again and again and again and again

2010-05-14T15:12:00.000-07:00

[White "alkansonata@chesscube.com"]
[Black "shadowcraft@chesscube.com"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1416"]
[BlackElo "1457"]
[TimeControl "30 min"]

Indeed, I learn far mroe playing against humans than I could against computer program. One such is that in almost every game I play, whether my opponent is same skilled, more skilled, or less skilled at chess as me I take longer to make my moves. Usually this is good, it tells me my mind is doing more analyzing, though it can also mean often it is taking my mind longer to do the same things as theirs is. Int his game I generally played better, but had to play more recklessly under time pressure, resigning in a losing position with 9 seconds left though being in control most of the game.

I play white, I do a queens pawn game. Opponent opens poorly but I only guess at how to exploit his error by 3. cxd5. When he takes back with his queen instead of his knight my regard for my opponent continues to drop. I chose to keep the pressure on by not exchanging queens and we enter into middle game territory I have the definite advantage. On move 16 my opponent hangs his c pawn and I capture it, though now with aid of analysis I see that the better move was h3 which would have won the knight for a pawn. A consequence of this the opponent develops his knight to f6.

In the following position I missed (as my opponent did as well) the fact that the knight, if able to move to a5 forces the queen to move and so hangs my bishop. The game would have been lost for me here had I been playing a stronger opponent. (At this point in my chess education skill gain is about recognizing tactical threats more than anything else) Also at this point in the game I could see my mind wasn't working as well, correctly I laid in bed and relaxed regaining the psychological state I had had in the earlier moves of the game. ... I attacked his bishop with my e pawn thinking the exchange would disrupt the pawn structure around his castled king ... but did not appreciate the fact that he can take the pawn back with the knight. Costly mistakes in these move all but cancelled out the advantages I had accrued earlier in the game.

I continued by making an exchange of pawns and forcing my opponent to move his queen with a gain of time. Simple idea but one which I thought (correctly) would give me an advantage. Computer analysis demonstrates that the exchange offers no tangible advantage. Better would have been Ne5 leading to a variation far above my current ability which would have left me two points ahead in material with a weakened pawn structure.

My opponent then moved his queen to b7. I saw a small advantage and jumped on it, exchanging knights and disrupting the pawn structure in front of his castled king. Did not recognize the possibility of Qxc7 Qxc7 than a knight fork on e6 which would have left me ahead a piece and effectively won the game.

Then I moved my other rook to the center, where I prefer to have my rooks on an open board. Did not detect or think about Rad8 24.Qe4 Rfe8 25.Qxe8+ Rxe8 26.Rxe8+ Kg7 which would have gotten me two rooks in exchange for my queen. Nor conceieve of Qg4+, leading to 23...Kh8 24.Rd6 Ne7 25.Rd7 Qc8 26.Qd4 Ng6 27.Qxf6+ Kg8 28.Rfd1 Qc4 which would have won me a pawn.

On move 26 I capture the knight with my pawn, feeling confident having established material dominance.

On move 28 I move king 38 to unpin my pawn(supported by the queen), feeling anxious about king safety seeing the rook and queen targeting the pinned g2 pawn ... thus tying my queen to it's defense. Plan was to move the knight to h4 winning the pinned rook. If I had moved king h1 instead of f1 I probably would have had a won game. Kc1 was a wretched idea, behind it the desire to prepare an active king for an endgame - theoretically sound, complete disaccord to the position.

Missed the correct Rd7 move, big chessic surprise - being more aggressive was a better idea.

On move 30 I again have a won position. Crucial error, not reailzing how different king on c1 is from g1 my position was, I believe, in no danger from Qxg2. Just taking the rook with the knight appears to be the best idea, and of course there is a variation the computer shows me improving it.

There was about 10 minutes left in th e game and I didn't have the time to think out the moves as much as i'd have liked, around this point was where the mistakes started to really happen.

Making a longer story shorter I make the same mistake again, overly concerned for king safety. Opponent uses his queen well to set up a fork and win my knight, shortly leading to material equality.

He plays poorly and I am up in material with a rook which I expect will be able force a win if I play calmly, but time was running out.

On move 42 I had a rather simple forced mate with 42.Rxf7+ Kxf7 43.Qd7+ Kg8 44.Re8#

Forced mate again on move 47 with 48.Qd7+ Kg6 49.Qe8+ Kh7 50.Re7+ Qg7 51.Rxg7+ Kxg7 52.Ra7#

Final hope I could see was moving queen to g8 with check skewering and winning or exchanging queens.

Even on the last move, I had moves to win the game, but time ran out and I resigned.

The main chessic sin: too comfortable accruing small advantages when huge advantages are eager and waiting. If with 5 minutes left, I would have spent a minute thinking about each move I likely would have won the game.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8 5. e4 b6 6. Bd3 Bg4 7. Qa4+ Bd7 8. Bb5 Bxb5 9. Qxb5+ Qd7 10. Qc4 e6 11. Bg5 Be7 12. Nf3 h6 13. Bh4 O-O 14. O-O Ng4 15. Bg3 Bd8 16. Rad1 Bf6 17. Bxc7 Nc6 18. e5 Qxc7 19. exf6 Nxf6 20. d5 exd5 21. Nxd5 Qb7 22. Nxf6+ gxf6 23. Rfe1 Na5 24. Qg4+ Kh8 25. b4 Rg8 26. Qh5 Kh7 27. bxa5 bxa5 28. Qf5+ Rg6 29. Kf1 Qa6+ 30. Re2 Rg8 31. Nh4 Qb7 32. f3 Qc7 33. h3 Qh2 34. Kf2 Qg3+ 35. Kg1 Qxh4 36. Rde1 Kg7 37. Qxa5 Ra8 38. Re8 Qg3 39. Qd2 Qxh3 40. Rxa8 Qxf3 41. Rxa7 h5 42. Re3 Qf4 43. Qf2 Qg5 44. Re2 h4 45. Kh2 f5 46. Ra4 Rh6 47. Qd4+ f6 48. Ra7+ Kg6 49. Ra4 Qh5 50. Rf2 h3 51. Qc4 hxg2+ 0-1

Chess Interview

2010-05-14T14:09:00.000-07:00

Q: You really seem into chess, how did you get into chess?

A: I was living in Europe you see (laughs). I was enchanted by the idea of playing chess well. I was fond of two some well-known artists who I learned were also formidable chess players. At that point in my life I was just starting to really understand how learning and skill improvement worked … so why not be like them and also become great at chess?

My first chess games were very pleasant experiences as I found it was a create way of assisting in a conversation with the person I was playing with. Unfortunately as I got to understand chess better I learned that conversating and playing chess at the same time is almost always a bad idea.

Q: How so?

A: Rule number one in chess for me is no multitasking! When playing chess a person should be playing chess, simple as that. In a chess game there is so much going on, so many wrong moves and often several choices among “good” moves that to play well requires the full force of someone's attention! This applies to experts and and grandmasters as much as it does to beginners. I'm not sure what your knowledge of psychology is but this is it – conversating or just talking takes an appreciable amount of working memory.

Q: How good are you at chess?

In chess there are 5 ranks for tournaments, I'm good enough to play competitively in D or C tournaments. Not nearly good enough for whatever I could do on a chessboard to be interesting to a professional player. I believe I am pretty good at chess relative to how long I have been playing it.

Playing chess is a humbling experience, someone can always find people who are much better at it than you, people who are able to make you look like a fool. Losing chess games isn't fun. I've had great games where I've played much above my skill level, I've had a-lot of games where I've made moves that were simply pathetic.

Q: And how long have you been playing chess?

About nine months now. … Of course when I was a kid one day dad got out the chessboard and taught me how the pieces move. I had to appreciate Sudoku before I could appreciate chess. … A-lot went into my decision to study chess. I saw more than one guy, nothing against them, sort of intellectual types who seem very well liked by ladies. Though unpopular, I knew better than them and I wanted to be able to crush them in a game of chess. Mission accomplished.

Q: How has chess effected your social life?

There it has been really beneficial. When I sit in a coffeeshop studying chess it usually turns heads. People have a healthy curiosity about something they don't know much about, a chess board is very noticeable visually, and chess of course has accrued more respect in the world than any other game has. Pittsburgh is definitely not a chess city, if I started doing chess like this in Budapest I doubt I'd create the same impression. Unfortunately I am probably better known in Pittsburgh as a chess player than as a poet or writer, ironic of course because I think I excel at these, whereas my chess is nothing special.

But more interesting to me, chess has improved the general strength of my mind, something that is evident to me every day. When a smart person takes up a new skill, say painting, or rock climbing or whatever it is, skill at other more important tasks usually improves. I don't think it is known why the mind works this way, but it does … for the same reason learning a foreign language will allow a writer a stronger command of the English language.

Another fundamental rule of chess is to always try to have a plan, not to “make things up as you go along.” I apply it to life and whatever I'm doing I try to always have a plan, a goal in mind. A solid sense of conviction and purpose in whatever I'm doing, big thing or small things.

Q: What are some common misunderstandings about chess?

Chess is most definitely a sport. Chess players are more like hockey players, or soccer plays than they like singers or writers or painters or whatever. Another idea commonly held is that you get good at chess just by playing lots and lots of chess games. If one wants to get good at chess one needs to read books about chess, lots of time reading about chess. A-lot of this information that must be absorbed and internalized can feel like dry impractical memorization … but learning is done incorrectly if there is no sense of fascination involved.

Another idea is that chess grandmasters are simply persons who have memorized a-lot of information about chess. There's more to it. Playing chess well requires the same creativity ability needed to compose poetry or make a painting. Some minds are just more suited for chess than others, chess is basically the manipulation of visual imagery in a creative and logical matter – same as in higher mathematics.

And like in any sport, to play well you have to completely shut off all empathetic feelings you might have for your opponent. My worst chess games are usually played with some people I genuinely like for this reason. Of all sports chess is most similar to a one-on-one marital arts contest.

Q: Is this sort of an argument to take up chess?

Eh, not really. More often when I talk to people I recommend that they don't work to improve their chess game. A person probably has to spend a few hundred hours learning chess before being able to do anything creative or interesting looking on a chess board. Chess is one of those things were you don't get very far if you only dabble in it mildly. (Simply checkmating the king with a rook and a king is very difficult if you have never done it before!) In the time necessary to become a grandmaster at chess a person could probably become fluent in at least 2 or 3 foreign languages. Chess is best fitted for people who are very socially competitive and who, lets say, have not much difficulty excelling at mathematics if they want to. For people like this I'd definitely recommend crossing the bridge and spending some time in chess world.

Simple Combination

2010-05-14T12:59:00.000-07:00

[White "temelkova@chesscube.com"]
[Black "alkansonata@chesscube.com"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1375"]
[BlackElo "1407"]
[TimeControl "20 min"]

Chess as I like it. I play black. Opponent has no knowledge of opening theory and opens poorly. I blunder on move 6 hanging my d pawn, but my opponent does not pick up on this. I prepare a very basic, very modest combination on move 13. Defending correctly I would have won only the exchange and a pawn, but opponent leaves his queen for a knight fork and then, what a surprise, loses his connection.

1. g3 e5 2. e3 d5 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. c3 Bd6 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qb3 Qc8 7. d4 c6 8. dxe5 Bxe5 9. Nd2 Na6 10. Ndf3 Nc5 11. Qc2 Bd6 12. b4 Nce4 13. Ne2 Bf5 14. O-O Nxg3 15. Qd2 Nfe4 16. Qd4 Nxe2+ 17. Kh1 Nxd4 0-1

Kingside Attack

2010-05-13T16:34:00.000-07:00

A great well matched game. I attack on the kingside forcing the opponents king to retreat uncomfortably to the queenside. Tactical battle, 15 minutes for each side, I run low on time and lose by a blunder back-rank mate.

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. c4 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bxd2+ 6. Qxd2 O-O 7. Nc3 c5 8. Bd3 cxd4 9. exd4 Qa5 10. O-O dxc4 11. Bxc4 Rd8 12. a3 Nc6 13. b4 Qh5 14. b5 Ne7 15. Qe3 Ng4 16. Qe2 Ng6 17. h3 Nf4 18. Qe4 Nxh3+ 19. gxh3 Qxh3 20. Rfd1 Nf6 21. Qf4 Nh5 22. Qe4 Nf6 23. Qe2 Qg4+ 24. Kf1 Qh3+ 25. Ke1 Qh1+ 26. Kd2 Qh6+ 27. Qe3 Qxe3+ 28. fxe3 a6 29. Kc2 axb5 30. Bxb5 Bd7 31. Bc4 Bc6 32. Ne5 Rd6 33. Nxc6 Rxc6 34. Bd3 Rac8 35. Kd2 Rxc3 36. Rdc1 Rxc1 37. Rxc1 Rd8 38. Rc7 b6 39. Rb7 Nd5 40. e4 Nf4 41. Ke3 Ng2+ 42. Kf3 Ne1+ 43. Ke3 Ng2+ 44. Ke2 Rxd4 45. Rb8+ 1-0

Less Study of Grandmaster Games

2010-05-13T12:03:00.000-07:00

The better I get at learning how to study chess the less time I spend watching grandmaster games. The main reason is obvious and every serious student of chess must deal with the same problem: much of what happens will not be able to be understood well until one is at a very high skill level. The games are remarkable and sometimes they may spur an idea, but putting that knowledge into practice in my own games ... that is of course not easy. I'm learning chess best when I focus on a particular skill in chess.

Similar idea, simply playing lots of chess games to improve skill does not work for me, or I imagine most people. There is simply too much going on at once. A golfer, for example, doesn't improve his game by just going through the whole course each time he goes out. Playing chess well requires a competetive spirit, a desire to push the mind even to exhaust it for the win, requires the mind to be in a certain capacity for synthetic creativity ... often, of course, my mind is not like this, I will learn simply by absorbing information from whatever chess book I am studying. It really seems to be a more general thing about skill learning - you don't learn French by going and seeing plays of Moliere ... you learn how to say particular things and to say them well, and a general knowledge accrues ...

Tactical Blunders

2010-05-13T11:59:00.000-07:00

My opponent makes blunder after blunder, he doesn't resign and his pieces fall until only the king is left. Definitely not skilled enough yet to find mating attacks until the end of the game.

1. c4 c5 2. d3 Nf6 3. Qa4 Nc6 4. Bf4 e6 5. g3 Be7 6. Bh3 b6 7. Nd2 Bb7 8. Nb3 Nd4 9. Nd2 Bxh1 10. Qa6 Nc2+ 11. Kd1 Nxa1 12. e3 O-O 13. d4 Ne4 14. Nb1 Nxf2+ 15. Ke2 Nxh3 16. Nxh3 Nc2 17. Kd3 Nb4+ 18. Kc3 Nxa6 19. dxc5 Bxc5 20. Ng5 Nb4 21. a3 Na2+ 22. Kb3 Nc1+ 23. Kc2 Ne2 24. Bd6 Bxd6 25. Nc3 Nxc3 26. Kxc3 Be5+ 27. Kd3 Qxg5 28. Kc2 Qxe3 29. b4 Qc3+ 30. Kd1 Bf3# 0-1

Updates On My Chess Improvement.

2010-05-13T09:08:00.001-07:00

The weakest part of my chess game for a while had been the middle game. I'd make a much better opening than my opponents but into the middle game something would go wrong, or, if not, often something was not right.

Then I found a chess tactics book that I have fallen in love with. I understand the theory that chess improvement is largely about improving tactical ability. Very quickly after starting to devour the Polgar chess tactic books I saw pieces differently, instead of making incremental positional improvements in middle-game I started to see tactical threats, my chessic mind had much more to think about, to work with.

If I understand correctly skill at chess can be broken down into skill in 4 basic fields: openings, tactics, strategy, endgame, and perhaps also a more abstract category of "chess knowledge." Of course I want to be a balanced player and give all these appropriate time of study.

I've stopped studying openings for the time because when I am playing at my rating level (1400ish on chesscube) I almost always have no problems in the openings and usually make a better opening than my opponents. I've been studying the endgame with an excellent book by John Nunn "understanding chess endgames." The endgame positions I study almost never occur in the games that I play, but I am sure they will start too as I get better.

My Improving Chess Game, Victory with 30 seconds left on the clock

2010-05-11T18:17:00.001-07:00

[Event "ChessCube Game"]
[Site "www.chesscube.com"]
[Date "2010.05.11"]
[Round "-"]
[White "alfonsozen@chesscube.com"]
[Black "alkansonata@chesscube.com"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1350"]
[BlackElo "1390"]
[ECO "C20"]
[Time "15:00"]
[TimeControl "15 min"]

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qf3 c6 4. Nh3 d5 5. d3 dxe4 6. dxe4 Bc5 7. Be3 Bxe3 8. Qxe3 O-O 9. Nd2 Ng4 10. Qg5 Qd6 11. Nf3 Nh6 12. Rd1 Qb4+ 13. Nd2 Bxh3 14. gxh3 f6 15. Qe3 Nd7 16. Bc4+ Nf7 17. b3 Nb6 18. O-O Nxc4 19. Nxc4 b5 20. Nb2 Ng5 21. Nd3 Qe7 22. h4 Ne6 23. Qg3 Rad8 24. b4 Nd4 25. Rd2 a6 26. c3 Ne6 27. a3 Rd6 28. f4 exf4 29. Qg4 Rfd8 30. Rf3 g6 31. h5 f5 32. Qg2 fxe4 33. hxg6 hxg6 34. Qxg6+ Qg7 35. Rg2 Qxg6 36. Rxg6+ Ng7 37. Rh3 Rxg6+ 38. Kf2 exd3 39. Rf3 d2 40. Ke2 Re6+ 41. Kf2 d1=Q 42. Kg2 Qxf3+ 43. Kxf3 Rd4 44. Kg4 Rg6+ 45. Kh4 Rd5 46. Kh3 Rh5# 0-1

My best chess game

2010-04-25T11:26:00.001-07:00

Definitely my best chess game yet. 1810 opponent decides to challenge 1310 me. Main line of the Nimzo Indian. Blunder loses Knight but creates two passed pawns. Opponent has a very bad bishop. King becomes immobilized blockaindg opponents passed pawn. My passed pawns fall to his king.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 b6 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Qxc3 Bb7 7. Bg5 O-O 8. e3 d6 9. f3 Nbd7 10. Bd3 h6 11. Bh4 c5 12. Ne2 e5 13. d5 Qc7 14. O-O Rfe8 15. Qc2 Bc8 16. Ng3 g5 17. Bxg5 hxg5 18. f4 gxf4 19. exf4 e4 20. Nxe4 Nxe4 21. Bxe4 Nf6 22. Rfe1 Bd7 23. h3 Nxe4 24. Rxe4 Rxe4 25. Qxe4 Re8 26. Qc2 Qd8 27. Rf1 Qe7 28. f5 Qe3+ 29. Kh2 Qe4 30. Qxe4 Rxe4 31. b3 Re3 32. b4 cxb4 33. axb4 Re4 34. c5 bxc5 35. bxc5 dxc5 36. g4 Rd4 37. Ra1 Rxd5 38. Rxa7 Kg7 39. Ra5 Rd2+ 40. Kg3 c4 41. Ra3 Rd3+ 42. Rxd3 cxd3 43. Kf2 Kf6 44. Ke3 Bb5 45. Kd2 Kg5 46. f6 Kxf6 47. h4 Kg6 48. h5+ Kg5 0-1

Evan's Gambit

2010-04-24T04:10:00.001-07:00

Evan's Gambit (My Swansong Of Literary Blog-Writing To-night)

I've been studying the Giuoco Piano opening. Found a really good source. Sure is hard work for me, easier for my mind to read literature for five horus than one hour with chess literature, but that'll probably get easier. Giuoco Piano translates in English to "Quiet Game." I also studied the "Quiet little game" Giuco Pianissimo. Memorized the refutation of Mahlers attack, I know. Some people wouldn't be impressed, that this is just brute memorization, memorizing lines. But, that is wrong, for one it is pretty impressive just to take the necessary time to burn something into long term permanent memory, second, to do anythign well requires creating lots of memories for it. Creativity and synthesis is built on knowledge stores. Thinking lately about temporal lobes and frontal lobes, you know. Anyway, next opening I've been studying is Evans Gambit (5 b4 ...) At the grandmaster level my reliable source informs me that Evan's Gambit is "rather tootheless." Definitely not a good idea to play Evans Gambit against a master or grandmaster these days. Next is the four knights game. Sebastian, Light, Bright, Right.

Evan's Gambit

2010-04-24T04:03:00.000-07:00

I've been studying the Giuoco Piano opening. Found a really good source. Sure is hard work for me, easier for my mind to read literature for five horus than one hour with chess literature, but that'll probably get easier. Giuoco Piano translates in English to "Quiet Game." I also studied the "Quiet little game" Giuco Pianissimo. Memorized the refutation of Mahlers attack, I know. Some people wouldn't be impressed, that this is just brute memorization, memorizing lines. But, that is wrong, for one it is pretty impressive just to take the necessary time to burn something into long term permanent memory, second, to do anythign well requires creating lots of memories for it. Creativity and synthesis is built on knowledge stores. Thinking lately about temporal lobes and frontal lobes, you know. Anyway, next opening I've been studying is Evans Gambit (5 b4 ...) At the grandmaster level my reliable source informs me that Evan's Gambit is "rather tootheless." Definitely not a good idea to play Evans Gambit against a master or grandmaster these days. Next is the four knights game. Sebastian, Light, Bright, Right.

Improving Chess Game, Chesscube Opponent from Spain

2010-04-22T17:51:00.000-07:00

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qe5+ 4. Be2 e6 5. Nf3 Qc5 6. d4 Qb6 7. Bf4 Nf6 8. O-O Bb4 9. Nb5 Nd5 10. c4 Bd7 11. cxd5 Bxb5 12. dxe6 fxe6 13. Re1 Rf8 14. Bxb5+ Qxb5 15. Rxe6+ Be7 16. Bxc7 Nd7 17. b3 Qd5 18. Qe1 Rf7 19. Qe2 Kf8 20. Re1 Re8 21. Bd6 g6 22. Bxe7+ Kg8 23. Bg5 Ref8 24. Re8 Qd6 25. Bh6 Nf6 26. Rxf8+ Qxf8 27. Bxf8 Rxf8 28. Rd1 b5 29. d5 b4 30. d6 Nd7 31. Qe6+ Kg7 32. Qxd7+ Kh6 33. Qe7 Rf5 34. d7 a6 35. d8=Q a5 36. Nh4 Rg5 37. Qxg5+ Kg7 38. Qe5+ Kf7 39. Qee7# 1-0

Playing Chess Online

2010-04-15T12:57:00.000-07:00

So I finally took the next necessary step and started playing chess online. Chesscube meets my purposes for now.

The biggest change, and improvement, is playing with time controls. This makes the game more challenging, more fair, than against my computer opponents I'd spend as long as I want (and not as long as I wanted) thinking before I made a move. At any skill, there is a conflict between time and quality. Almost anything can be done well given enough time, and on the other hand crime and punishment can be read through in 5 hours. The game itself is at a higher level of quality with time controls.

Playing against humans is more exciting than against the computer. Chess really is tough. Blunders are often humiliating, much more so against a human opponent than against a computer. A victory against a human opponent can be very satisfying to me, a defeat can leave me irritable and disorganized in my mind for a few hours. I realize more and more how important it is knowing when to play a chess game and when not to play a chess game. Just mechanically "playing more and more chess" really isn't a good way to make skill gains, I'm realizing. That is probably a really good way not to gain skill, to autmatize and crystalize one's chess ability where it is by repeating repeating repeating. I'll look forward to posting some of my chess games.

In Defense of Coffeeshop Chess - Part II Knowledge and Ability

2010-04-01T14:05:00.000-07:00

Another week, more coffeeshop chess, repetition of a good pattern. As in chess, as in life, in particular circumstances it is smart to ignore the rule - we played around nine games instead of our usual three, my favorite chess opponent and I. (Happy it is spring, the chess games certainly are more fun for me cause we play outside and we can smoke cigarettes as we play.)

I won two, or maybe three of the games. Like in any competetive sport, whoever has the most will to win usually determines the victor, or win when the opponents are pretty well matched in technique. The same course of events occured in most of the games, I end up playing sloppily and he achieves a tactical victory, I get crushed by his combinations and I don't think he knows, in chess terminology, what a combination is. Such a natural, I'm not at chess though.

Indeed, my opponent is a natural chess player, he would be happy playing chess against opponents all afternoon. I get tired of it eventually, I do not interest myself, I end up with nothing new. That would probably surprise people, because when I study chess in coffeeshops I certainly "have the look" very often. (Chess opening book)

I've taken in a-lot of wisdom from Josh Waitzkin, one of the more valuable gems has been how dangerous it is to try to defeat an opponent by chess knowledge alone. There is chess knowledge and there is chess ability, two different things. I try to defeat him with my chess knowledge and he defeats me with his chess ability - strategy and tactics. My chess games, most often, are the games of a loquacious conversationist, I love seeing things on a chess board and explaining what their name is. I understand best when I can put something into words, most of my better chess games I talk to myself alone in my room while playing them.

The same pattern kept repeating in our chess games today, like I told him, if I was a chess professional our games would make me want to go home and cry. Most games I saw a move that excites the theoretical and knowledge part of my mind and so I make the move, the move does not attend well (well, hello!) to the position on the board and the move becomes a succesfully exploited blunder. The best way to play chess, I'm convicned, and a way that only comes to me with much difficulty, is to attend to the precise situation on the chess board on every move, leaving the theoretical interesting parts for when the game is done. All else being equal, the person with chess knowledge verses the person with chess ability - the one with chess ability will win hands down.

My favorite human opponent and I, we are pretty evenly matched. He is a natural tactician and I am a natural loads of chess knowledge (comparatively speaking) eager to find a way to exploit it. My knowledge has lead to some incredible moves sometimes, but move per move the tactician makes better moves than I do. For the first three, four, five moves my play is precise and barely criticisable. Sometimes in the openings he will make a move that I know is bad, but I don't have the ability to refute his play and turn it into a winning position. Like my mood, or temperament, whatever I'll play impetously, can so so clearly that I am not calm enough to stop and think out the position (I reach these energetic chess calms alone in my room, playing against imaginary human beings.) I become more interested in the conversations around me than thinking chess, I become more interested in being pleasing by making a move than playing better - hopefully I'll improve! I know enough neuroscience to understand how are brains are working differently, I relly on a febrile type of stored memory, most of the time, while his mind analyzes the concrete position.

As far as I can see we play high quality coffeeshop chess quite well. Most games have material equality or one, or sometimes two pawns up until the shit hits the fan. Whoever loses the first minor piece without compensation usually loses the game. Fun part is we keep getting better at chess, quickly, certainly.

In Defense of Coffeeshop Chess - Part I - Stop Multitasking!

2010-04-01T14:04:00.000-07:00

More Coffeeshop chess with my favorite human opponent, and our games get better and better. In chess literature the term coffeeshop chess is used sometimes as a rather condescending way to describe bad chess games, or bad chess moves. I see bad coffeeshop chess too, to be fair, at least the people who play with chess have the courage to try it.From a viewpoint of chess alone our chess games in a coffeeshop are nothing memorable. In the Ruy Lopez my opponent responds to d4 with bishop e6 instead of b6, we hang our pieces in really embarassing ways, the professionals have seen thousands of games almost indistinguishable from the ones we play.Yet they are good healthy games and when we play I get the sense that our brains are improving in chess ability at an incredible rate. We usually play three games, as we did today. Pretty much, though at incredibly more crude, our minds are doing in these games what the professionals do (with the important exception, see below) ... in the first game I get over confident in the middle game and a blunder allows my opponent to win with a tactical move. In the second game there is lots of pawn movements and the theme became mostly the pawn structure. In the third game the knight moved around a-lot in the opening (my knight ending up on b6 for a while, I believe) and then my opponent gets through on the kingside, my king gets out of the attack. I end up a rook up but the rook is stuck on b4 or b5 behind connected passed pawns. With a pretty open board we move our queens a-lot giving lots of checks to each other and he forces a threefold repetition - the first game that we had that was a draw.As we get better we talk less as we play, no doubt. As we were talking about when we took a break after game two. Talking is talking, chess is chess, not neccesary to multi-task. The conversation about the inappropriateness of multi-tasking.As Reuben Fine said, and I know how many others have to, what distinguishes the amateur chess player from the professional is the precise planning. Often, after a move is made, then we see what we should have, our minds don't have the strength to sit and stare at the position until it is really well seen. That is what these games lack, and they must, because we can't have hours long games, not yet at least. The less we talk to each other as we play chess, the more social the games become, and I like it.

Evidence Of My Improving Chess Game #2

2010-03-22T00:22:00.000-07:00

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e4 c5 5. Nf3 cxd4 6. Nxd4 Bc5 7. Nf3 Qxd1+ 8. Nxd1 Nf6 9. Ng5 h6 10. e5 hxg5 11. exf6 gxf6 12. Bxc4 Rh4 13. Ne3 Bd7 14. b3 Nc6 15. Bb2 Bb4+ 16. Ke2 Bc5 17. Bxf6 Bxe3 18. fxe3 a5 19. Bxg5 Rg4 20. h4 Ne5 21. Rac1 Rxg2+ 22. Kd1 Nxc4 23. Rxc4 a4 24. b4 Bc6 25. Rh3 f5 26. a3 Kf7 27. b5 Rb8 28. bxc6 bxc6 29. Kc1 Rbb2 30. Rxa4 Rgc2+ 31. Kd1 Rf2 32. Rh1 Rb1# 0-1

Winning Position, Lost Game

2010-03-20T20:47:00.000-07:00

Playing chess today against computer. My games are getting better, I have to say. I can even take the embarassing losses. This is one of my best games to date. Nothing very interesting for a chess expert, but I do think I'm improving my chess skill at a respectable rate (I've only been playing about half a year, I think ... I loose track of time.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bc5 5. h3 d5 6. Nxe5 d4 7. Na4 Nxe4 8. Nxc5 Nxc5 9. O-O Qd5 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Re1+ Be6 12. Bxc6+ Qxc6 13. Qh5 O-O 14. d3 Rab8 15. Re5 Nd7 16. Rg5 g6 17. Qh6 Qxc2 18. b3 Qd1+ 19. Kh2 Qxd3 20. Ba3 c5 21. Re1 Rfe8 22. Rg3 Qa6 23. Bb2 Qxa2 24. Qd2 Rxb3 25. Rxb3 Qxb3 26. g3 d3 27. Bc3 c4 28. Bd4 f6 29. Re4 Kf7 30. Qh6 Rh8 31. Qd2 Qc2 32. Qe3 Re8 33. Qh6 Nf8 34. Rf4 Bf5 35. Rxf5 gxf5 36. Qxf6+ Kg8 37. Qg7# 1-0

Young Pretty Girls: Chess Endgame

2010-03-19T14:45:00.000-07:00

One of the best things about chess for me is that it allows me to size a person up really well. I definitely don't mean the simple judge someone by their chess knowledge or chess ability. Playing a game of chess with someone you can get a sense of how competetive they are, how they make decisions, how easily they get afraid, how much they feel under pressure to conform to social expectations, under-confidence and over-confidence problems and more crudely how their mind handles demanding visuospatial tasks. The natural chess player, I've realized, has a very masculine brain type, a certain prodigious ability with mental imagery. I really understand why women in chess is such a risky topic, more I imagine than women in basketball, tennis or golf ... afraid of offending someone by accident, I'm doing my best to stay away from that topic on this blog.

However, a women that is good at chess earns my deep respect. With women like that, them being "woman" is not very important to me, they are more of a person than representing a gender. Anyway, I heard an interesting story about a girl, she isn't very good at chess, though she does try to give her credit, she is good looking, her chest and her chess is out to impress - and I really don't have anyone I know in mind, this could be one of thousands of American or European girls. Women like that are like chess players who only study the opening. At the beginning of their adult life they look really good, they have the look of a master ... but once it gets to the middle game they usually don't look so good anymore, they stop being able to make the pretty moves. In life they may end up reaching a happy solid end game, but their chess endgames hardly exist. Knowing about the good openings is necessary chess knowledge, but I think most serious chess players would agree it is of more necessity to learn the middle and endgames well ... sharp common sense and a little time memorizing can get a strong player into the middle game.

Chess life analogy seems to become less effective in endgame talk, unlike in the middle game. In chess endgames errors are the most drastic, the most costly, while this probably isn't often the case in life. There is a certain beautiful complex simplicity in the last stages of life, just like in a chess game ... the most important parts of chess and life remain there to the end. Minor pieces and pawns go away. The pawns already got bored, and went away, anyway.

How embarassed I felt, the hours I spend each week lately practicing openings in coffeeshops, surely looking much better than I am to non-chess players. I avowed not to be the guy who looks good in the opening but has no endgame. I got a new chess book and began studying from it. John Nunn's Understanding Chess Endgames. I'm starting again with King Pawn endgames of course. The book has positions, I'm not only going to read through them, I'm going to test my knowledge by playing them out against the computer. Obviously picking up endgame knowledge by games against computer (or opponents) is a failing strategy ... studying endgames when my mind is most likely to be tired of chess or a little overwhelmed. Time to get back to studying my endgame.

More Coffeeshop Chess

2010-03-12T12:31:00.000-08:00

More chess games against my favorite human opponent today. It is coffeeshop chess but it is good coffeeshop chess! Every game we play is different, the moves we make have reasons behind them. It is a battle to win.

I make blunders I wouldn't or much less often make against computer, yet I can tell that more learning occurs. Our talk is full of chess language, theoretical justifications. More often we aren't talking, we are at ease looking at the board thinking. Five games today, I can't remember them all clearly. Three Spanish games, an Italian game, a Queens gambit accepted. Pretty high quality games, we open, activating pieces and then tactical situations are before us to tackle.

In the most memorable game I outplay him in the opening and then, I have position of extreme dominance in front of me. Another game was horrible blunders, I hang a knight, but then, I saw, he hung his queen. Funny how chess works ... during one of these games I greedily captured a pawn and left my rook hanging as clear as day. I have the look, but anyone who would see what was on the board would see how pathetic my play was in that game. In the last game he attacks with queen and rook and gets a crushing like win.

As always, my main problem is overconfidence. Too strategical in these games. I feel the room to make a "down the road move" when, instead, I should have went right into tactics. So fond of these games, basically expert, master, and grandmaster games are pretty much the same, except with such an extremely more refined and developed technique and so much more knowledge. I feel like we are doing basic algebra, and we are doing it in the right way ... we stand in awe and admiration of the men who are doing more advanced math. Excited indeed to constantly improve my chess game with human opponents!

Speed Chess Vs. Computer ... Endgame Improvement

2010-03-11T15:32:00.001-08:00

One problem I've been having with playing chess games (against computer) is the sheer amount of time. I'm sure it'd be the same if I was expert or master and pretty sure the same as grandmaster: To play a game at my best, for the most skill game, a move can take half an hour or an hour ... calculating the variations, seeing all the possibilities, waiting until the confidence is there to say to myself: I am confident this isn't a bad move. The best way to gain skill in chess probably are these long complete quite time consuming (getting lost in time) games.

I tried something new today and played the computer as fitted my move, as I like to play against people sometimes. Not spending much time to calculate, making sound decisions quickly after they appear in the mind's eye.

So I discover a real value of blitz or speed games. Having to rely on chess intuition, they are amazing diagnostic tools to understand what is missing or not strong in one's chess intuition. After playing the games I run through the analyses and see the results: in the late middle game I start to blunder. Unless I take time to look carefully at the position I will hang pawns.

I need to improve my endgame, majorly. I crave that burst of energy as the 3rd part of the game starts to appear before me, where new ideas start forming, new strategies. Sad to say I know multiple times more about openings than endgames. Mainly because studying openings is easy, I do other things as I study openings, mainly listening to music. All else being equal the more I know about the openings the better I figure. Still, I'm not satisfied. I sense the utmost mediocrity of the type of chess player whose skill fades and energy wanes as the endgame begins. I have a great book by Seirawan on chess endings, it is time to get back into that.

Second Phase Of The Spanish King

2010-03-07T16:20:00.000-08:00

Most chess games are either kings pawn games or queens pawns games. Once I started to get the basic knowledge of chess I decided to focus on queens pawn games. Better against the computer. Better reflecting my attitude towards chess, that I would play best in the Karpov type calm precise positional improvements. In addition choosing queens pawns games would let me demolish beginners who only knew how to respond to e4.

My strategy was to only study Caro-Kann opening for kings pawn games. But I have to change. As tempting as it is to remain a queens pawn game type of guy, the beauty of positions I see in kings pawn openings is too alluring. The sharp tactical struggle for the center that begins with the first moves.

Playing my regular human opponent I started playing e4. Because sharp quick tactical games were what I wanted to play. Chess, like art, and sports, .... the person has to perform in accordance with how he feels, with who he is.

Anyway, I am happy indeed to have the Pandolfini book Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps sitting on this desk. (It was either stolen or got lost a few months ago.) Pandolfini wrote in it about different "phases" of the Ruy Lopez. That made sense to me! The first opening in chess I played was the Ruy Lopez. I've gotten a-lot better. Mastering the Ruy Lopez isn't rocket science, I'm convinced that it is much more difficult to master than rocket science. The concept of the Ruy Lopez I like so much! There is so much to learn, and to play the Ruy Lopez you really end up having a heads on battle of which mind knows more about chess. Four months since I've studied the Ruy Lopez. Something like that. I've gotten a-lot better. Now I'll spend the evening in front of my chess set studying the opening. Time for Ruy Lopez phase 2.

Psychology Of Simultaneous Chess Exhibitions

2010-03-05T15:29:00.000-08:00

I'm starting to understand the psychology behind the succesful simultaneous exhibition.

An essential element is not underestimating your opponents. Really, the way chess works is that one wrong move often allows the opponent to take advantage and win the game. Brush someone off as weak or unimportant when thinking of the chess move, and you might have it in for. Chess teachers so much, of course, one lesser known thing that it teaches is to not undnerestimate people, to see the greatness and ability of whoever is in front of you.

Another element is that type of absolute self confidence. Backed up by the necessary technical knowledge. I know some master level chess players have confidence problems. I remain quite doubtful that many or any chess grandmasters have confidence problems, at least with chess.

Another element is that most important, being in the moment. The readers of this blog probably understand it well but of course most people do not. Any game, any position, offers chance to improve chess ability, any chess position deserves a certain amount of correct thought. The grandmaster can do the simultaneous exhibition because his extent of chess knowledge and ability is so great that it is just basically him by himself thinking about chess for a few hours. Anything more I can think of right now is the extreme common knowledge of how a simultaneous chess exhibition can be done.

More Chess Against Human

2010-03-05T15:18:00.000-08:00

As usual, I meet my friend D and we play chess in Crazy Mocha coffeeshop in Bloomfield.

The quality of our games stun me. If we played chess 3 times a day , almost every day, for the next ten years, we would probably at least reach master or expert level.

Three games. All kings pawn openings.

It is an even fight and I develop my pieces. I make horrible, pathetic calculation errors and fall way behind in material.

Second game Ruy Lopez. I thought I was making the most basic text move doing pawn a6 (or h6, whatever) but something went wrong. My pawn structure destroyed, down a pawn, I resigned.

Third game, mimicking a game of Alekhine I attack on the kingside with knight and queen and swarm his territory with my pieces. I stopped giving the game the concentration it deserves (oh indeed, how I would have lit a cigarette if it was in Europe) and he catches up and then, material equality. I have the connected passed pawns, I move them up the board and get the win.

Of course, these games are riddled with ridiculous and humiliating blunders, yet if I understand correctly our minds are working the same way as expert and master chess players ... their games and minds often are the same, except their knowledge of chess technique is exponentially greater than ours.

It's going to take some time, unless tragedy strikes I'm going to keep working day in and day out to improve my chess game.

Review of "The Chess Artist"

2010-03-04T08:25:00.000-08:00

Review of "The Chess Artist"

Like the subject, like the author. No grandmaster craft.

Of course, like a master, no obvious blunders, nothing bad, nothing laughably wrong.

But long, the book is 300 pages, Couldn't it have been shortened and thereby improved? The writer takes so much time to write about so many little interesting things that happened to him. Grandmaster chess players do more with less.

I'll give the writer credit. Insightful history of chess. Insights into the mentality of a strong chess master. Insight into Kalymk and the lunacy of chess city. Insight into the darker side of chess. yet, seriously, David Shenk's "The Immortal Game" does a much better job. The interview at the end with the convicted murderer and chess killer near the end is interesting, certainly

As in chess, as in life, weaknesses are most often not intentionally shown, but stronger players pick up on them. Somewhere in the middle of the book Hallman plays Glen in a blindfold match. Glen begins with D4 and Hallman writes about not knowing how to handle such an opening.

Come on now. Not the same as not knowing how to handle the English Opening or the Budapest defense. Anyone who studies chess correctly for a month will have a confident strategy of dealing with queen pawn openings. No one is expecting a writer about chess to strive to play in expert class tournaments, but a serious study of how to play chess certainly would be a good idea, wouldn't it? Is it any wonder that Hallman was not useful as Glen's 2nd during the tournament?

Hallman was intrigued by what, usually incorrectly are called "chess obsessions." There isn't much secret, no different from language obsessions, reading obsessions, football obsession. A person learns something, there is always more to learn, the learning is constructive, useful, and impressive, so the person keeps learning as much as he can. I doubt though, Hallman did enough serious study of chess to make learning how to play the game fun for his mind in its own right.

A pretty good book. Better than most books. But missing something really great. Sort of like the difference between chess masters and grandmasters, I would say.

LOOKS COMPLEX but just lazy

2010-02-28T11:26:00.001-08:00

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Bd2 Bd7 7. a3 Rc8 8. axb4 Nxb4 9. Qb3 c5 10. dxc5 dxc5 11. Rxa7 Ra8 12. Rxa8 Qxa8 13. Qd1 O-O 14. e4 Qa1 15. Qxa1 Nc2+ 16. Kd1 Nxa1 17. Bd3 Ra8 18. Ke2 Nb3 19. h3 g6 20. e5 Nh5 21. g4 Bc6 22. Ne4 Bxe4 23. Bxe4 Nxd2 24. Nxd2 Nf4+ 25. Ke3 h6 26. Kxf4 h5 27. Bxb7 Rb8 28. Be4 Rxb2 29. Rd1 hxg4 30. hxg4 g5+ 31. Kxg5 Kg7 32. f4 Rb8 33. f5 exf5 34. gxf5 Kf8 35. Rb1 Rxb1 36. Bxb1 Ke7 37. Kh6 Kd8 38. Kg7 Ke8 39. e6 fxe6 40. fxe6 Ke7 41. Bf5 Kd6 42. Kf6 Kc6 43. e7 Kb6 44. e8=Q Kb7 45. Qe6 Ka7 46. Qc6 Kb8 47. Be4 Ka7 48. Qb7# 1-0

Someone Has A Secret Admirer

2010-02-25T14:02:00.000-08:00

Someone Has A Secret Admirer

Just In Case You Don't Know

2010-02-25T08:38:00.001-08:00

What everyone who doesn't play chess should realize, about chess, is that for anyone who plays chess seriously chess is more than chess. Chess is a game, in the legal moves of the game there is an almost infinite amount of complexity, much more than any person could take in. The complexity goes beyond, indeed, the techniques of a well played chess game.

To play chess seriously, at whatever level of skill, is a statement one makes about oneself. And how hard indeed is it to find something to criticize in that! At the least chess comes to represent a certain social competetiveness, a desire to learn and improve at the skill, a desire to be impressive ... and modesty, almost all of the greatest chess players, if not all, were acutely aware of what they didn't know of in chess. And, of course, there are, lets say, more material advantages to being a chess player: playing chess is attractive to any healthy mind.

When I talk chess (either with another chess player or reading aloud) it often feels uncannily similar to speaking in a foreign language. The basic words, the adjectives, the prepositions are plain English, but someone listening in to such talk, who knew next to nothing about chess, would have no way of understanding what, in concrete terms, was being spoken about. I can imagine myself overhearing two auto-mechanics speaking animatedly about why a car is not working, to allow myself to get the idea. (Indeed, I'll be the last person to look down on that, or any "talking shop. That is the point, you see.)

Such is the richness of language, or part of it. Hearing the voices of masters and grandmasters talk chess is as pleasing as good music to me, by the emotional richness of the voice. Chess of course is art when taken seriously, you understand, bishops can be bishops, or they can be fools, or elephants, or about religion, or about sex. continuing to push a passed pawn, white squares and black squares. The strong mind playing chess can basically speak about other-than chess with his moves, and the opponent at his level will be able to understand. Just in case you don't know, grandmasters usually have minds rich in fantasy and imagination, they are not, like many people imagine, just people who have dedicated a-lot of time and memory to patterns.

Chess Improvement

2010-02-21T10:35:00.000-08:00

Ten hour chess game. Far better than my last one. Now that it is over I copy and paste the move list and give quick analyses later,

1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 Bb4
5. a3 Bxc3+
6. bxc3 O-O
7. Qd3 Ne4
8. Bf4 c6
9. cxd5 cxd5
10. Bxb8 Rxb8
11. Rb1 b6
12. Qe3 Qe7
13. Rb3 a5
14. a4 Bd7
15. g3 Bxa4
16. Rb1 Rfc8
17. Bg2 Rxc3
18. Qf4 Rb7
19. O-O Bc6
20. Ne5 Qg5
21. Qxg5 Nxg5
22. Rfc1 Rxc1+
23. Rxc1 Be8
24. Rc8 Kf8
25. f4 Ne4
26. Bxe4 dxe4
27. Kf1 Ke7
28. Rc1 a4
29. Rc2 b5
30. f5 exf5
31. d5 Rb6
32. Rc8 Rd6
33. Kg2 Rxd5
34. Ra8 Rxe5
35. h4 e3
36. Kh2 Rc5
37. g4 fxg4
38. Kg3 h5
39. Ra7+ Kf8
40. Ra8 Rc2
41. Kf4 Rxe2
42. Rb8 a3
43. Ra8 b4
44. Ra5 g6
45. Ra7 a2
46. Ra5 b3
47. Ra8 Re1
48. Kg5 a1=Q
49. Rxa1 Rxa1
50. Kf4 Rd1
51. Kxe3 b2
52. Ke2 b1=Q
53. Ke3 Qd3+
54. Kf4 Re1
55. Kg5 Qe3+
56. Kf6 Rf1# 0-1

Chess Endgame Improvement

2010-02-18T15:16:00.000-08:00

The weakest part of my game is my endgame. Most players who are not professionals are probably the same. I know exactly why it is the weakest, no surprise. By the end my mind is usually a little worn and wants to relax. Having a material advantage also the easiest time to become overconfident. Also, I haven't spent as much time studying the endgame as the openings and middle.

So, yeah, this has to change. I'd like to get to the point where, as the end game begins a new burst of energy comes to me. That extra endurance. The ability, perhaps, if I desired, to trade pieces somewhat thoughtlessly to rush to the endgame which I would be a strong player in.

I hope I'll get there. It is going to take a-lot of work. I am prepared.

Chess And Painting

2010-02-18T14:56:00.001-08:00

Chess, of course, can be compared to so many different sports or arts ... and most of these analogies end up being the same - they improve comprehension by making a valid analogy. Don't get me wrong, analogical reasoning can be overdone, and I do not think, like some cognitive scientists, that analogical reasoning (whatever name you want for it, bishop, fool, or elephant) is that defining essence that makes a human human.

Anyway, chess to me is like painting. A beauty of chess, the aesthetic validation of chess for me is in the visual beauty of certain positions. If not visual in the most direct sense, certainly processed in the parts of the brain that are dedicated (among other things, I know) visuo-spatial function. Another beauty of chess is what, I argue, also makes athleticism beautiful - struggle and ideally victory ... social competetion.

Feels like I am learning to paint at 27, that is how my chess work, my chess play, feels more than anything else. I paint in my own room. I get better and better at painting, but the master painters deservedly snicker in their minds as they see how poorly the apple is drawn, the nose is dran, etc. And it will be years, if ever, until a master painter would look at my paintings and not, in a flash, find quite evident and ugly flaws in them.

Chess, you see, as you probably know, is not just chess. Playing chess well involves knowing how to do dozens, perhaps hundreds of more particular skills. Rook Pawn End Games, When to try to trade bishops, when to push or make pass pawns, etc ... if I understand correctly, and I might be wrong strides in skill advance are made when several of these secondary skills improve together, when little big chunks of brain, basically start to get more connected.

Like most chess games, most paintings, I imagine, are created in three stages.

Opening: The initial conception. The first ideas of the painting. Like chess openings, if the first stage is bad the rest of the painting will usually be bad.

Middle: In most chess games, and I imagine most paintings, the middle stage is where the most mental work is done. Where there is so much to do, where no brain can explore the nearly infinite directions the work can go.

End: In many chess games the end game are the finishing touches, necessary knowledge of technique necessary to seal a victory. Or in the case of painting, to remove the blemishes or unbeautiful parts. Sometimes the end is the most important part of the chess game, the most dramatic. The beautiful well played endgame often makes the distinguished chess game.

One other thing I've found in my chess experience, when playing against computer, the quality of my games and learning seems quite proportional to the time it takes to complete the game. 200 minutes is about as long as I can spend on a chess game at this point, if I can get to eight or ten hours regular I think I will probably have reached expert level, or at least C or B tournament level. Learning any skill is, I think, a complex function of time and quality. Quality being a certain receptivity and clarity of mind ... time being how much time the mind devotes to the skill being learned. With minds with a certain regular quality, it seems like becoming grandmaster or master or expert is mainly a function of time spent. Easier said than done because chess is just one part of life!

I like my choice, chess over painting. D.H. Lawrence was a painter, and his best painters indeed are something special. More special than my chess games ever will be, I am confident. But the chess provides an outlet for social activity that painting, I don't think, would be as suitable for. As with a painting, as with chess, look long enough at one and one will see more and more than what first hit the eye.

So, without further ado here is my best chess-painting to date. Pretty impressive, I think, for having played less than six months. Only in such a context, of course. On move 5 I acquire dominant position. (I am sure, in what I can't see yet, was my failure dozens and dozens of not hundreds and hundreds of ways.) ... Around move 9 I finally understand why Nd7 is usually the preferable choice in Caro-Kann defense. On move 16 I judge it best to take the center pawn, and the next three moves I am on the defensive, trying to again be in a safe, calm position. The idea of Nd5 pops into my head and I get a little too carried away with the idea, but within, I think, bounds. The calculations of how to respond to Rxd5 on the next move takes, indeed, quite a while (it must have taken you a long time too, at some point, my prince of chess.) Indeed, my brilliant move would have lost the game to a stronger opponent. The ensuing exchange leaves me now only up one on material. On move 24 my opponent blunders loses his knight. And from there I knew the had the game one if I did not allow myself any rash thinking. Around move 30 my play starts getting sloppy. A little sloppiness meant 40 more moves until victory. In chess you see, the more time you spend thinking what move to make, in almost all circumstances, the more time you save for yourself in the long run. Through the next 40 moves I played more feebly, but still solid and I achieve victory through a basic rook and king mate.

1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Bc4 Nf6
5. Nge2 Bf5
6. a3 e6
7. Qd2 Be7
8. Qg5 O-O
9. Qf4 Nbd7
10. Ng3 g6
11. O-O b5
12. Nxf5 gxf5
13. Be2 Kh8
14. Kh1 Rg8
15. g3 Qb6
16. Qh4 Qxd4
17. Be3 Qd6
18. Rfd1 Nd5
19. Rxd5 cxd5
20. Nxb5 Bxh4
21. Nxd6 Bg5
22. Bxg5 Rxg5
23. Nxf7+ Kg8
24. Nh6+ Kg7
25. Ng4 fxg4
26. Rd1 Ne5
27. Rd4 Nf3
28. Rb4 a5
29. Rb7+ Kh6
30. Re7 Rg6
31. c3 Rb8
32. b4 axb4
33. axb4 Rc8
34. Ra7 Rxc3
35. Ra1 Rc2
36. Bxf3 exf3
37. Rf1 Rg8
38. b5 Rgc8
39. h3 Kh5
40. b6 Rb2
41. b7 Rxb7
42. Re1 Rc6
43. Kg1 gxh3
44. Kh2 Kg4
45. Rb1 Rbb6
46. Rc1 d4
47. Rd1 e5
48. Re1 Rc5
49. Re4+ Kf5
50. Rh4 Rc2
51. Rxh7 Rxf2+
52. Kxh3 Kg6
53. Rh8 Kg7
54. Rc8 Re2
55. Rc1 Rg2
56. Kg4 Rf6
57. Kh3 Rh6+
58. Kg4 Rf6
59. Kh3 Rg6
60. Rc7+ Kh6
61. Rc8 R6xg3+
62. Kh4 Kh7
63. Rc6 Rg6
64. Rxg6 Kxg6
65. Kh3 Kf5
66. Kh4 Kf4
67. Kh5 Rg4
68. Kh6 Kf5
69. Kh7 Kf6
70. Kh8 Kf7
71. Kh7 Rh4#
0-1

Greco's Unknown Chess Opponent Gets An F

2010-02-13T11:11:00.000-08:00

Avversario sconosciuto Greco riceve un voto in mancanza!

The first brilliant and famous chess game I watched now is the one I understand best. Eight moves 1619. Greco was white

1. e4

Considered the single best opening move. But even at the highest level of grandmaster play beginning with d4 is basically equally powerful move. King's pawns games tend to be more tactical and less positional than queens games are said to be, but once chess players are able to play out lines each can be either.

E4 puts white in control of the d5 and f5 squares. Having the white pieces is something similar to having the serve in tennis or choosing where to eat out at. Huge amount of control over which openings will be put into play.

E4 also prepares for the white squared bishops development, the likely squares it will initially be activated on. All else being equal castling kingside will be more beneficial than a king in the center. And it establishes the queens control of the d1-h5 diagonal.

1. … b6

A weak opening move. Fianchettoing the black white squared bishop is no weak move, but on the first move it is simply too early to determine whether fianchoetting the queenside bishop is a wise choice. Though a move like this might be good psychologically, making an opponent thing he or she has a weaker opponent on his (her) hands than imagined … transitioning into Queens Indian defence, for example. Yet the move is just too risky to be solid. The move exerts little control over the center.

2. d4

In theory the best or one of the best second moves for white is d4. With not-threatened pawns on d4 and e4 white has control of the center. C5, D5, E5, and F5 are under whites control. The d4 pawn on 2. d4 is defending by the queen. Of course the best use of a queen is rarely to defend a pawn, but something is better than nothing. The development of both of the white's bishops is prepared for. The move incurs an acceptable weakness in white's position: the pawn no longer on d2 the safety of the king is weakened. 1. e4 2.d4 demands an intelligent response from black, to ignore the threat is to blunder.

2. … Bb7

Best to complete a fianchetto in two consecutive moves, unless something out of the ordinary occurs. The bishop threatens the pawn on e4, but the pawn can be easily defended several ways from the threat.

3. Bd3

In theory knights should be developed before bishops, and I doubt in 1619 this was understood well. Or perhaps Greco knew his opponents chess style and, quite eagerly, prepares an assault on his castled king as quickly as he can. 3. Bd3 defends the e4 pawn. If the e4 pawn moves or is captured then, all else equal white's kingside bishop has become much more active. However the weakness of the move in this context is that it now leaves the d4 pawn undefended.

4. … f5??

Black's intention I suppose is to have white capture with his e-pawn, and then to capture the pawn back later. The move disrupts the utter control of the center white has, but what a sloppy and weak way to do it. The black king has become much less safe and white is under no serious attack. Much better would be Nf6, Nc6, or e5, to name a few. Stage is set for a quick effective cold blooded attack by white, and black brought the burden on himself in this chessic instance.

5. e4xf5!

White makes the correct aggressive move. Black egocentrically is excited about his control of the long white diagonal. White now has control of e6 and b6 squares. The number of solid moves black has at this point have become again, once more, further lessened.

6. … Bxg2

Black lights up. He is ready to take a major piece, still control the h-a white squared diagonal, an destroys whites kingside pawn structure. Without careful play, white will not win.

7. Qh5+ g6

Forcing blacks next move Both sides are attacking. White's attack however attacks the king and gives him the advantage of having more control of the tempo. Black attacks with a single minor piece, which is something like a boxer trying to win a match using only one type of punch. In chess as in life complexity allows something to be stronger. All else equal material advantage is better.

8. f5xg6

If white ignores the threat he is checkmated next move. Again black has only one sensible response.

9. …. Nf6

Which allows capture of white's queen, eliminating the discovered check. Bold Greco chose not to play a passive game. (Indeed he probably felt quite excited, maybe.)

A king on the weakened diagonal, unable to move off the diagonal is indeed an easy target, … perhaps the Unknown opponent was talking rapidly at Greco in Italian most of the game, maybe his chess opponent was horny?

10. gxh6+ Nxh5

Initial appearance, of course, is huge mistake for white. But, but but

11. Bg6# checkmate.

A Problem With Playing The Computer

2010-02-11T18:30:00.000-08:00

My problem playing the computer is the artificial nature of the mistakes. Don't get me wrong. The only computer opponent I've played against is chessmaster, but I assume there isn't much difference in playing style between chess engines.

The computer opponent, if I understand correctly, is programmed to make mistakes sometimes. The problem is these mistakes are not at all like the mistakes humans make, or almost never. The computer can even be programmed into having a certain type of over-confidence or over-confidence, but the mistakes are not like the ones humans make. The computer emulates understanding of what a good move is, and then tries to ignore that knowledge, when it intentionally makes a mistake .... the human makes a mistake often either from a certain normal type of mental sloppiness, or from something that lacks in their chessic knowledge.

That is my understanding, that is why I prefer more and more human opponents over computer opponents.

What I Wish I Was Better At In Chess

2010-02-11T16:48:00.000-08:00

If I could wave a magic wand and improve one aspect of my chessic ability I would choose better understanding of tactics. Specifically, mid-game tactics.

Having a sense for my personality, I choose the path of Queens Pawn Games. In my serious games against the computer I try to play in a calm manner gradually accumulating positional advantages. Because playing aggressively leads to overconfidence.

For the same reason my prefered response to 1. e4 is the Caro-Kann defense. An opening that, for black, if played correctly, is a tried and true way of developping all of black's pieces.

So my tactics lack, I know the concepts, I just seldom am able to put them into practice against computer opponents.

But, however, in matches against humans who are good opponents, I play aggressively, make attacks, see tactics all through the board.

What does this tell me? The same thing it should tell you, time to go beyond that phase where I only played against the computer when sitting in front of my computer.

Why And How I Study Openings

2010-02-11T16:18:00.000-08:00

Two of my chess teachers are full of caution against memorizing openings. Josh Waitzkin makes a great case against doing it. Yasser Seiriwan has called memorizing openings a huge waste of time, in an interview.

But I think I study openings in a good way. This is how I do it. I do it at leisure, when, honestly, my mind isn't flexible or strong enough to study chess in other ways. I listen to music when I do this study, and I like listening to music even more than I like chess, no doubt about that ... and the music is usually as new to me as the chess openings.

I use "Chess Openings The Easy Way" by Nick de Firmian. I like the book. Having glanced through the not easy version of this book, I understand the complexity is far beyond my current level of chess ability.

In this book, for each of the major openings, there is something like 30-60 lines.

Here is my strategy for playing openings in games:

If I'm White, Queens Pawn Game, preferably Queens Gambit Declined.
If I'm black and Ke4, then Caro-Kann
Know how to handle the English opening.

What I do when I study openings, I memorize the line, I play it out on the chess board. Usually 2 or 3 times. On time 2 or 3 I don't need to look in the book.

This strategy has advantages and disadvantages for me. The disadvantage is that it will be quite some time before I can expect to play out any of these lines in an actual chess game. Against computer or human. The study does not correspond well to the concrete challenges I face in my chess games.

However there are advantages. Advantage one is that it is just practice understanding Algebraic notation. I've already got most of that down, but the better I get with algebraic notation the fewer mistakes I make.

The better advantage is that I often am able to understand why a certain move was made. Sometimes "why that" is clear as day, sometimes I really do not know, sometimes I discover why while making the moves. Practicing the lines helps me understand the "why is that a good move" and I think that is completely essential .... watching chess games and playing them oneself, being able to understand why a move is good ... or bad ... or solid ... or poor.

*

And one last advantage. To the untrained eyes around me in Kiva Han I look like I am a master or grandmaster when I am at about 1200. (When, say, a true international master has accumulated something like 25-40 times as much chess skill as I have.) I must admit, I have fun with that.

Calculation Blunder Hangs Piece

2010-02-11T16:07:00.000-08:00

I wish I had the energy to write about all my chess games. I've learned that on some days I am just wasting my time playing chess games, because I don't have the patience and calm to think as much as the positions deserve. Here is another game, here is how my novice chess mind thought and fought through it.

I'm playing Mark, 1144. Kings Pawn Game. I'll use Caro-Kann.

1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Qh5 NF6

How to best exploit this mistake? Nf6 and g6 appear the two options. By attacking queen I develop while gaining a tempo.

Nf6 seems like the better choice. Pawn moves are more permanent than piece moves. G6 is passive unless I commit to a fianchetto of the king bishop.

5. QG5 e6

e6 appears strong. E6 prepares development of kings bishop. E6 works to control the center. H6 and Nbd7 appear satisfactory, but I do not know if I want them on those squares.

6. Bf4 H6

Was I blind to Qxd4?
If Qxd4 I have control of the center and a one pawn advantage but white develops his Knight with tempo.

If h6 then Qe5 remains a problem. As does Qg3.
ND7 removes the possibility of capturing with the queen.
A6 defends the queenside but appears passive in a dangerous situation.
H6 Qe5 , Bd6 QxBd6 BxD6 … (Too passive by not capturing with the queen? Too anxious about threat to not do so)

7. Qe5 Bd6
8. Qxd6 Qxd6
9. Bxd6

…. What an embarassing error. Did not even stop to think the trade would leave him ahead in material. I'm resigning. White won this game.
But I want to see what happens if I captured with my queen.

6. Bf4 Qxd4
7. Rd1 QxD1
8. KxD1? Nd5

Game deserves to be played on. I am down two pawns, superior position.
So, my plan, take it or leave it, is to trade Knights and improve pawn structure. … ND5, NxD5 ex Dx5 and my position is improved. I don't see any structural weaknesses by moving the e pawn. Trading when down in material, but I am not far down, and positional disparity appears large.
I am commited to castling kingside. Aware of my fear of losing if I do otherwise.

9. Nxd5 Exd5
10. Nd2 f6

!? Qe5 stings. Another blunder on mypart. It appears. If f6 e5 is defended and I gain a tempo. I like that.

11. Qg3 Na6

Knight must be moved. I see nothing playable with Nd7. Na6 however threatens Nb4. N on C5 appears a good place for it.

Nc3? Nc5
Nc3 defends the a2 pawn
If … Nb4 a3 the Knight is lost.
Queenside castle and attack with Kingside pawns?
Attack Bishop with Knight or with G pawn? Can't decide.
Well, to be honest, NxF4 is even exchange down on material which does nothing for my position. G5 gains a tempo and momentum in my mind towards a strategic goal.

13. Be2 G5
14. Bh5 … didn't see that coming.

Big Mistake: calculation blunder that hung a bishop
Big Mistake: Trade that left e4 undefended with uncastled king. Potential huge blunder.

Main mistakes: overconfident calculation. Pride at what appeared to be sound tactical calculations were actually not good calculations. Overestimated the weakness of opponents Qh5
Good points: Good opening. Correct play of Caro-Kann. Bold and probably correct piece sacrifice for positional gain.

Best of 3 With A Real Human

2010-02-11T15:56:00.000-08:00

Another week. More chess games.

Am I doing something wrong by continuing to play the computer instead of seeking human opponnets? Surely I am. However I have the peace to think as much as I want. I have the time to eliminate some theoretical weaknesses in my game … computer opponents are good for that.
Undeniable, however, that learning proceeds at a much speedier and higher quality pace against human opponenets. I don't understand quite why.

I played 3 games today in a coffeeshop against a human opponent, and they were learning experiences. He is a chess novice, more of a novice than me, but he is a natural player. All his moves were solid, he made mistakes from overconfidence, like I do, and continued to make great moves while losing … something not many chess players are good at.

We played 3 games. I won the first game. He opened poorly and I did my best to continue to make unpretentious solid moves. I played aggressively and won.

Game 2 I become up a bishop early and develop overconfidence problem. His queen tears my army apart before I resign.

Game 3 I do Caro-Kann with black again. I succeed in doing what I have never been able to do against a computer opponent: setting up a mating attack against his castled king. I remove the defender with my knight, then queen took on h2 backed up by the bishop. About as simple and elementary as an attack can be, but it worked.

Game 2!

2010-02-04T16:31:00.000-08:00

I learned from my mistakes. I'm ready to play again. I control the black pieces, I'm playing Jeff. 1. d4.
I prefer Queens pawn games. I prefer Queens gambit. 1. … d5

2. Nf3 … by playing Nf6 I could arrive at several openings. I don't feel comfortable with Grunfeld reversed, that's for sure.

3. C4. If I play e6 then I get the isolated pawn. If dxc he will recapture with his bishop and have two central pawns. If he captures next move my night takes back. C6 appears suitable. I maintain my central pawns, prepare an open c-file. … C6

4. NC3. Slav Defense again. I know this opening but not very well. D6 opens the diagonal for the black bishop but hems in the white bishop. E6 also adds another defender to the D5 square. I am pretty sure this is a book line move, too. I'll have to figure out how to develop the white squared queen bishop. … e6.

5. Qc3. Semi-Slav line. How should I react to the Queen on B3? Pinning the knight is no longer an option! I see no immediate threats, Bishop to e2 prepares kingside castle, and prevents white from pinning my knight with his queenside dark squared bishop. … Be2

6. cxd. Capturing towards the center seems like the better move here. I can counter any attack of the Queen and Knight. ...c x d

7. Qb5+. Three ways to respond, Queen, Knight, Knight.
Line 1: … Qd7 Q x d7 Bd7 …. and the c3 knight has nowhere to go.
Line 2: … Nd7 … a3 …. this takes more time, makes it more complex. Strategy is to keep game simple, make sound moves.
However is Nf5 a threat? Nf5 forces Q x Q N x B5 and I have two knights in my territory … ND7 however … still is pinned … NC3 blocks the check.
What if (1) NF5 Q x B5 (2) N x B5 ? … Nc7+ cannot be prevented, then. So I have 4 options here, 3 Knight moves, Kf8 also, which I cannot rule out. … Nd7 2 Ne8 NC6 seems to stop the attack, gives my king a chance to castle. The move seems sound … ND7

8. h4. This surprises me. A-lot of choices here.
Line 1: a6. This defends against a5 a6 and against Ng5
Line 2: castle kingside.
Line 3: h6, forcing the queen to move and defending against NB5
Line 4: NC6 developing Knight and pinning whites Knight to the D4 pawn.
I like a6. I keep the tempo. I have lines of attack against the queen. I also gain a little space, all else equal a pawn is stronger advanced, which, I know, doesn't mean much. … a6

9. Q D3. My Queenside is alright. Now to defend the kingside. H6 appears best, preventing Nf5. My king sure isn't safe as it is though. Nf6 appears like a move I will want to make. … h6.

10. Ne5. Wants 1. … Nxe5 2. dxe which sticks that pawn right on the e5 square, in my face! If I threaten the queen with Nc5 then what? … Nb5 axb …. that wouldn't work for him. Blunder! Cannot move there without pawn taking Knight. Duh! Shit. Anyway, a blunder in imagination isn't a huge deal. My idea. Mine. Not.
Castling looks appealing here, if he sacrifices a knight I am up material. Bishop and Knight sacrifices can destroy my kingside pawn structure.
Qa5 pins his knight.
NC6 forces an exchange. Nxf7 is a threat that can only be met here by castling.
Life indeed looks poor for my king if he has to capture on f7. So castle here we go. … 0-0.

11. Ng4. I see threats. Nxh6 gxh6 Qg3 …. but how big a threat is that? White cannot use bishop on the ah black diagonal. So lets stop and think of lines
Line 1: … Bxh4 … Rxh4 Qxh4 leaves me with distinct positional and material advantage. I should probably pursue this line unless I find hidden threats.
Line 2: NF6 … all but forces an exchange of Knights. But this is not as appealing as taking the pawn, nor is developing Queenside Knight. … Bx h4.

12. a3. A defensive move against Nc6 b4. Now, does Nf6 work? Nf6 … if N x F6 then Qf6 which is very strong looking. If Ne3 the Knight is indeed in poor position. Another move to consider is B f6 or e7 which removes it from danger … allows queen to pin Knight on a5. Another move is f5 which again forces the Knight into a poor position. … If f5?! Then Nxh6 gxh Bx6 … or Qg6 … too risky. Offering Knight sacrifice seems to allow fair improvement in position. Strategy is to develop Queen Knight and Bishop somehow, accrue positional advantages.

13. Nxh6. Uh-oh! The threat exists, my bishop is defenseless. Someone made a big blunder.
14. Rxh4. Someone made a big blunder. I missed the cut off the line from queen to bishop. Well, since this is just practice. I can take the moves back. Without take backs I just lost, that is clear.
So, back to move 12. How do I manage this threat? Kh8? Indeed, king is safe on that square, if Kxh7 white is down material. Ah! (Failure in chess, as in life, is getting wound up in ideas and seeing, then, what isn't there, or thereby missing the obvious)
13. Nxh6 … g , h
14. Qh8. Uh oh. I feel my thinking lessening. Only option that I see is to retreat the bishop.
15. F4. CxG5 would have been better, I think. I am ahead material and under attack. This is the situation. F6 appears okay. Material advantage cannot be maintained here, I don't think. If fxg fxg Qxh6 kg8 I am still in the game. … f6
16. fxg fxg
17. Qxh6 kg8
18. Qh7+=

Not surprised that I was completely oblivious to the Rh8 rook. On defense the whole game.

Purpose Of Chess Blog

2010-02-04T16:28:00.000-08:00

Purpose is to chronicle my chess education. Why? Not because it is interesting to anyone else. But it simply helps me learn better. I've been playing chess for about 6 months. I work more than a few hours a day at it. Let me assure you, as wow! as these games and thought processes look to the not chess player, I promise you these games are nothing special indeed from a chess aspect. At best they will chronicle a learning mind.

Since I am entirely certain that anyone except me attending to these from a chess perspective is wasting their time, it does not matter. I am entirely certain the annotation of my games is riddled with massive number of errors. I sure hope you don't care.