Okay, it has been a long while since I have posted but some of that has to due with my new child. So, not only am I trying to improve my play, as a new father, well my time is even more spread out and my sleep reduced. However, those are just challenges to this process and challenges that others have to face as well.
Since my last post, I lost over 80 rating points due to some very bad play against some 1100 players. But, I'm still class C and this last tournament has served the purpose as to open my eyes as to what I'm doing.
Current, I'm trying to study my endgame play and to leverage this in my overall game. So far, my knowledge is steadily increasing in this but I think I still have a ways to go before I see the impact in my OTB game.
Secondly, I spent time going over the openings of the games I have played this year to try and understand what my opponents are playing against me. I have found that may people who I play (in my weekly club game) are starting with d4 and my best response has been the KID. So, I have decided to spend some time reviewing that in more detail. In this review, I am using YouTube and the MCO. So, I'm still basic in this understanding but I think I am making progress.
In addition to this, I have decided to move away from playing the Caro-Kann in response to 1. e4. My rational behind this is two fold. First, I haven't been playing it very well. I have a few wins and a few draws but none of the games were extremely good. And I had some very bad loses against players who really used their knights with deadly impact. Simply put, my lack of understanding the key concepts behind this opening as a Black player, put me at a huge disadvantage. And secondly, I'm playing either the Ruy Lopez or the Giuoco Piano as White so I have decided to play the Black side of this as well. This will help me to learn OTB how to both play the white and black side and thus save me some time in my studying as I can center my study time on just two openings.
As a side note, I have been the assistant TD at a few tournaments including one scheduled for this Saturday. As an assistant mainly charged with the doing the pairings, I also play in these events. So, this weekend I have a three game event cumming on and hopefully I will be able to preform well.
Good games to all
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
A Good Weekend
I played in a one day, three round tournament yesterday and had a good day.
This tournament is very healthy and had 50 players attend in four sections. I played in the under 1800 section since my rating is 1526. In the first round I was paired with 1770, second 1616 and last 1630. (I'm estimating the rating on the last two games.)
The first game I played was great. I made good solid moves. Put my pieces on good squares and when the time came, made a very strong queen move that ensured my win. Or at least put me into a very strong and aggressive position. I'm going to sit down and annotate this game and possibly post it here later. (It takes me two to three hours to review one of my games so it might take me a few days.)
After this however, my level of play dropped. My second game, I don't know what I was thinking. In the opening I made a questionable decision to trade my bishop for a knight and then I decided to chase my opponents knight with all my pawns thinking I could win the piece. Well, i was wrong about winning the piece and then when the dust settled all my pawns were on bad squares and I just lost.
The thrid game went quickly to an end game that was hard fought for about 50 moves. I believe that my position was more sound but then, I made a bad pawn push which allowed my opponent to attack with his queen putting me on the defense. He went up a pawn but again I made some great moves and retook the advantage. Only to draw the simple pawn-rook endgame. Oh well, everyone has their days I guess.
In the end, a win against a very strong Class B player and a draw and lose against average Class B players. Overall, great progress for me. But we will have to see how things end up.
This tournament is very healthy and had 50 players attend in four sections. I played in the under 1800 section since my rating is 1526. In the first round I was paired with 1770, second 1616 and last 1630. (I'm estimating the rating on the last two games.)
The first game I played was great. I made good solid moves. Put my pieces on good squares and when the time came, made a very strong queen move that ensured my win. Or at least put me into a very strong and aggressive position. I'm going to sit down and annotate this game and possibly post it here later. (It takes me two to three hours to review one of my games so it might take me a few days.)
After this however, my level of play dropped. My second game, I don't know what I was thinking. In the opening I made a questionable decision to trade my bishop for a knight and then I decided to chase my opponents knight with all my pawns thinking I could win the piece. Well, i was wrong about winning the piece and then when the dust settled all my pawns were on bad squares and I just lost.
The thrid game went quickly to an end game that was hard fought for about 50 moves. I believe that my position was more sound but then, I made a bad pawn push which allowed my opponent to attack with his queen putting me on the defense. He went up a pawn but again I made some great moves and retook the advantage. Only to draw the simple pawn-rook endgame. Oh well, everyone has their days I guess.
In the end, a win against a very strong Class B player and a draw and lose against average Class B players. Overall, great progress for me. But we will have to see how things end up.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Too Much At A Time
Call it bad luck. Call it bad concentration. Say it is due to too much on my mind. What ever excuse I want to come up with is fine. But I have been losing a lot of games to people who have ratings way lower than I do.
So, I sat down and looked at them to try and find out what I was doing wrong. What can cause someone to lose to a player that is almost 400 rating points lower, consistently. And what did I find beyond uninspired moves, lack of a battle plan or leveraging good positions and tactics was that my endgame was terrible. In the past few that I have played I believe that my endgame position was at least event to better but I wasn't able to take advantage of them.
Lately I have been trying to study the Queen's Gambit and the Queen's Gambit Declined. The QGD was suggested as a good defense that I should learn as Black against d4. So, I have been investing time here but overall I think I need to really get down the basics and look at where I need to spend my limited time. Like I told someone yesterday, very few times do people win a game in the opening or even in the middle game. One might come out with a small advantage but not typically the win. The win is sealed in the end game.
So, I'm going to spend the next few weeks just studying the end game. This will hopefully give me the tools I need to play these end games strongly and add a few wins (hopefully) to my record.
So, I sat down and looked at them to try and find out what I was doing wrong. What can cause someone to lose to a player that is almost 400 rating points lower, consistently. And what did I find beyond uninspired moves, lack of a battle plan or leveraging good positions and tactics was that my endgame was terrible. In the past few that I have played I believe that my endgame position was at least event to better but I wasn't able to take advantage of them.
Lately I have been trying to study the Queen's Gambit and the Queen's Gambit Declined. The QGD was suggested as a good defense that I should learn as Black against d4. So, I have been investing time here but overall I think I need to really get down the basics and look at where I need to spend my limited time. Like I told someone yesterday, very few times do people win a game in the opening or even in the middle game. One might come out with a small advantage but not typically the win. The win is sealed in the end game.
So, I'm going to spend the next few weeks just studying the end game. This will hopefully give me the tools I need to play these end games strongly and add a few wins (hopefully) to my record.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Lessons Not Learned
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)