In an online game I was playing over the course of about a week, I achieved a position that I thought was completely lost.
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6
3. Nxe5 Qe7
4. d4 Nc6
5. Nxc6 Qxe4+
6. Qe2 Qxe2+
7. Bxe2 dxc6
8. O-O Bd6
9. Bg5 Bf5
10. Bxf6 gxf6
11. c3 O-O-O
12. Nd2 h5
13. Rae1 Rdg8
14. Kh1 Be6
15. Bc4 Bd5
16. Bxd5 cxd5
17. Nb3 Rg5
18. g3 h4
19. Kg2 f5
20. f4 Rg4
21. Re3 Rhg8
22. Rff3 Bxf4
23. Re7 hxg3
24. h3 Rh4
25. Rxf7 Rxh3
I had the White pieces and at this point, I resigned the game. Following that resignation, my opponent ask me why I resigned because he didn't think I was lost. This makes for a few really good lessons that I have an issue learning.
1) Never resign unless it is obvouse that I'm lost. In this game, it wasn't evident to my opponent that he had won.
2) Use all of your time. In this game I had a few days left to make a move so I should have studied longer and harder.
3) Always look for a better move. I looked at three or four options than resigned. I need to look deeper at other things.
Options:
a) 26. Rxf4 Rh2+ (27. Kf1 g2+ 29. Kg1 Rh1+ 30. Kf2 g1=Q+) (27. Kg1 g2 28. Rf2 Rh1#) So, the rook cannot take the Bishop.
b) 26. Rg7 just loses the rook after Rxg7 and then Black is up a rook and should still obtain his queen.
c) 26. Rxg3 and White trades his rook for the pawn and is in a lossing position.
d) 26. Kxh3 g2 Here 27. Rg3 loses to 27. ... Rxg3+, 28. Kh2 g1=Q#. 27. Rxf4 loses to g1=Q and a mate threat at Qh1#.
e) 26. Nc5 (or anywhere for that matter) and Rh2+ will allow Black to push the g pawn using checks to the end of the board.
f) 26. Rf8+ is the only last option, I believe. 26. ... Rxf8 27. Rxf4 Rh8. (Now if White plays Rf3 here, he will be losing after Black will be able to play f4 then Rh2+ with solid play and chances for that g pawn. However, if he plays Rxf5 then after 28. ... Rh2+, 29. Kxg3 Rxb2. Black will be ahead but White will still have some life left in him if he can mount a good defense.
So, I should have looked harder to find this last option. I still think that it will be a loss for White in the end but I should have looked harder before resigning. Of course, I still might be missing something so I sent this same information to him so he can tell me if there was another defense that I might have missed.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Play the Queen's Gambit
It has been a week since I posted, but that is probably due to the fact that I missed my tournament game last week. (I have a child on the way so I had to attend some baby classes to keep my wife happy).
Okay, but I did just finish playing a good game against a good opponent that I will annotate and then post online. It takes me a few days to do that because, well, I have to review the entire game and look up the openings to see what works best. So stay tuned for that.
But, I have a new book from the library called "play the queen's gambit" It is an Everyman Chess book (a series that I like a lot) and this one was written by Chris Ward. I have only gotten about 20 pages into this book but I wanted to point out my goal for this one. I'm a big fan of having an idea of what I want from a book before I read it so that I can gain something. I just find that if I pull a book and just read it to see what happens I don't really get as much from it. So, my goal with this book so to learn the Queen's Gambit Declined. As I mentioned in a prevous blog post, this defense was suggested to me as an option against 1. d4. I was told that this might fit my play style.
Now, I want look look at the QGD, however the first part of the book is the Queens Gambit Accepted. I have worked through the theory part of the opening for about 15 different lines and I'm starting to like it a lot. I have traditionally been an 1. e4 player, but this book is starting to suggest to me the idea of changing. Now, I should add that this is just the Queen's Gambit and there is more than two different ways to play against 1. d4 but it will keep me from having to play the Sicilian that I hate so much.
So, this book has already been a good thing for me and I have yet to get to the part that I really hoped to learn the most. Hopefully, in a week or so I will be able to add this book to my list of really good chess books.
Okay, but I did just finish playing a good game against a good opponent that I will annotate and then post online. It takes me a few days to do that because, well, I have to review the entire game and look up the openings to see what works best. So stay tuned for that.
But, I have a new book from the library called "play the queen's gambit" It is an Everyman Chess book (a series that I like a lot) and this one was written by Chris Ward. I have only gotten about 20 pages into this book but I wanted to point out my goal for this one. I'm a big fan of having an idea of what I want from a book before I read it so that I can gain something. I just find that if I pull a book and just read it to see what happens I don't really get as much from it. So, my goal with this book so to learn the Queen's Gambit Declined. As I mentioned in a prevous blog post, this defense was suggested to me as an option against 1. d4. I was told that this might fit my play style.
Now, I want look look at the QGD, however the first part of the book is the Queens Gambit Accepted. I have worked through the theory part of the opening for about 15 different lines and I'm starting to like it a lot. I have traditionally been an 1. e4 player, but this book is starting to suggest to me the idea of changing. Now, I should add that this is just the Queen's Gambit and there is more than two different ways to play against 1. d4 but it will keep me from having to play the Sicilian that I hate so much.
So, this book has already been a good thing for me and I have yet to get to the part that I really hoped to learn the most. Hopefully, in a week or so I will be able to add this book to my list of really good chess books.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Databases and Online Chess
Today marks another first for me in my chess development, the use of online chess and game databases and opening books.
I am a regular player on two different chess websites (chess.com and gameknot.com). On both of these sites I tend to play only the correspondence type games where one is granted a few days for each move. Up until now I have used these sites more like a regular game play with me moving after just a few minutes of consideration. Today marks the day where I have changed this view, well, to some extent that is.
A new game was started today with me having the White pieces and I began with 1. e4. My opponent played 1. .. d5, the Center Counter or Scandinavian. I don't play this opening very well even though I know the first few opening moves, however under the suggestion of an expert who I is helping me out a bit, I decided to research this game as I'm making the moves. Look at game databases and open theory is not against the rules of correspondence chess as long as you are the one doing the analysis not a computer or some other person.
So, I pulled out my copy of MCO v15 (Modern Chess Openings, version 15) to review the opening lines it has. There are very few for this opening, with all starting with 2. exd5. So, I made that move. The next move, however was not one that is listed in this book. 2. ... c6. Now, in a game I played two weeks ago, I got into a bad situation after grabbing up some offered pawns so I wanted to really find out what taking this pawn would do because it looked okay for me. So, I pulled up my Chess Master program and went to the game database that it has. It found 16 games with these moves.
So, I glanced through them. I didn't do the in depth analysis I probably should have of these games and how they traversed, but after looking at them, I decided that taking this pawn wasn't bad for me.
So, at this point, I'm up a pawn and we will see how things go, but the important thing is that I'm branching out. Using my chess resources to help advance my knowledge of the game and how to play things. I sometimes wonder if the people whose games I look at ever thought that they would be used as a stepping stone for my learning process.
All that said, I should say that Chess Master, or the version I have, doesn't have the largest game database but for me it will work for now.
I am a regular player on two different chess websites (chess.com and gameknot.com). On both of these sites I tend to play only the correspondence type games where one is granted a few days for each move. Up until now I have used these sites more like a regular game play with me moving after just a few minutes of consideration. Today marks the day where I have changed this view, well, to some extent that is.
A new game was started today with me having the White pieces and I began with 1. e4. My opponent played 1. .. d5, the Center Counter or Scandinavian. I don't play this opening very well even though I know the first few opening moves, however under the suggestion of an expert who I is helping me out a bit, I decided to research this game as I'm making the moves. Look at game databases and open theory is not against the rules of correspondence chess as long as you are the one doing the analysis not a computer or some other person.
So, I pulled out my copy of MCO v15 (Modern Chess Openings, version 15) to review the opening lines it has. There are very few for this opening, with all starting with 2. exd5. So, I made that move. The next move, however was not one that is listed in this book. 2. ... c6. Now, in a game I played two weeks ago, I got into a bad situation after grabbing up some offered pawns so I wanted to really find out what taking this pawn would do because it looked okay for me. So, I pulled up my Chess Master program and went to the game database that it has. It found 16 games with these moves.
So, I glanced through them. I didn't do the in depth analysis I probably should have of these games and how they traversed, but after looking at them, I decided that taking this pawn wasn't bad for me.
So, at this point, I'm up a pawn and we will see how things go, but the important thing is that I'm branching out. Using my chess resources to help advance my knowledge of the game and how to play things. I sometimes wonder if the people whose games I look at ever thought that they would be used as a stepping stone for my learning process.
All that said, I should say that Chess Master, or the version I have, doesn't have the largest game database but for me it will work for now.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Gary Kasparov, Unlimited Challenge
So, I finished reading about Karpov then picked up the book on Kasparov.
Just reading their autobiographies you can feel the difference between these two individuals. How they operate, how they see their own chess and how they interact, even with each other. And of course, it is always interesting to see the different point of views on the same subject. Between these we see the world champion matches from each of their own perspectives and wow are they different.
in readings these though, I was looking for a deeper understanding in chess and I think I came back to something that I saw in the the movie "Searching for Bobby Fisher". I never believed that chess excellence was every something that could be made from a cookie cutter. There isn't some recipe that will teach someone to be a great player. I think you have to be born with something. Maybe the way people think and their mental affiliation to the game is what is required. In each of their own words, these two great players tell us how they always loved chess even before they knew the rules.
But like was said in the movie, you have to be who you are. Everyone has their own style and trying to copy some else isn't going to get it done. Trying to be Bobby Fisher by playing his games and understanding his moves will not make you better or equal to Bobby Fisher. Understand Karpov's and Kasparov's games will not make you a world champion either. There are so many different components to the game so may different ideas and though process. There is a personality to the game. Everyone who touches a piece has their own personality. The key to unlocking chess is understanding your own personality, well and playing hard.
I wish I knew my personality. But I guess this process that I'm on is, in part, to discover my own personality. Chess is life, well, maybe not is life but it is something.
Just reading their autobiographies you can feel the difference between these two individuals. How they operate, how they see their own chess and how they interact, even with each other. And of course, it is always interesting to see the different point of views on the same subject. Between these we see the world champion matches from each of their own perspectives and wow are they different.
in readings these though, I was looking for a deeper understanding in chess and I think I came back to something that I saw in the the movie "Searching for Bobby Fisher". I never believed that chess excellence was every something that could be made from a cookie cutter. There isn't some recipe that will teach someone to be a great player. I think you have to be born with something. Maybe the way people think and their mental affiliation to the game is what is required. In each of their own words, these two great players tell us how they always loved chess even before they knew the rules.
But like was said in the movie, you have to be who you are. Everyone has their own style and trying to copy some else isn't going to get it done. Trying to be Bobby Fisher by playing his games and understanding his moves will not make you better or equal to Bobby Fisher. Understand Karpov's and Kasparov's games will not make you a world champion either. There are so many different components to the game so may different ideas and though process. There is a personality to the game. Everyone who touches a piece has their own personality. The key to unlocking chess is understanding your own personality, well and playing hard.
I wish I knew my personality. But I guess this process that I'm on is, in part, to discover my own personality. Chess is life, well, maybe not is life but it is something.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Karpov on Karpov
I am a believer that great chess players are not made by memorizing opening books, memorizing endgame theory and practicing tactical situations. I believe that these skills help improve a good player but I think there is more.
I have recently found "Karpov on Karpov, Memoirs of a Chess World Champion" by Anatoly Karpov. In this book, Karpov breaks down his life and his chess and does it on a level that anyone can easily read. He hits on a number of topics that made him a great player and identifies problems associated with other top players that he identified and was able to use against them over the board.
I won't say that everyone should learn to be like a great player. I don't think what worked for Karpov, or Fisher or Spaasky will work for anyone else. But I do think there is something to chess that goes beyond the basic movements of the game. There is something associated with the human element that makes this game really exciting.
I will admit that there are a fixed number of moves that can be made. (Given that number is so huge it might as well be unlimited except that in the future I'm sure we will have computers that can list them all and decided which is best.) I believe that even with a fixed number of moves there is still an art form to it. There is something beyond the standard placements of the pieces that really make chess special. Perhaps I say this only because this is game I love but who knows, maybe there is something to it.
I just believe that in his self reflection, Karpov not only tells us about his life, but he also teaches us about chess. I recommend this book to everyone, even non-chess players as it still has lessons that can be adapted to most situations.
I have recently found "Karpov on Karpov, Memoirs of a Chess World Champion" by Anatoly Karpov. In this book, Karpov breaks down his life and his chess and does it on a level that anyone can easily read. He hits on a number of topics that made him a great player and identifies problems associated with other top players that he identified and was able to use against them over the board.
I won't say that everyone should learn to be like a great player. I don't think what worked for Karpov, or Fisher or Spaasky will work for anyone else. But I do think there is something to chess that goes beyond the basic movements of the game. There is something associated with the human element that makes this game really exciting.
I will admit that there are a fixed number of moves that can be made. (Given that number is so huge it might as well be unlimited except that in the future I'm sure we will have computers that can list them all and decided which is best.) I believe that even with a fixed number of moves there is still an art form to it. There is something beyond the standard placements of the pieces that really make chess special. Perhaps I say this only because this is game I love but who knows, maybe there is something to it.
I just believe that in his self reflection, Karpov not only tells us about his life, but he also teaches us about chess. I recommend this book to everyone, even non-chess players as it still has lessons that can be adapted to most situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)