Friday, November 20, 2009
new!!
I've been informed by author David Rudel ("Zuke 'Em," "The Moment of Zuke") that a new, expanded edition of "Zuke Em" has hit the online market. This new work includes the "Phoenix Attack" and has been lengthened to 314 pages. I found it on Amazon.com for $27.99. Readers of this weblog know that I highly respect David as an author and as the foremost proponent of this opening system. Please check it out.
feedback and my "assignment"
My goodness, did I gather a healthy amount of feedback today from IM Yelena Dembo! Had Skype performed as it usually does, I would have likely had even more. But I think I can work with the following: I have adequate tactical ability for my level. I need to learn more about positional play. I need not prioritize the endgame right now, since I rarely get to it. I have a screaming need to learn opening theory. I give my opponents far too much "credit" and myself not enough. I let myself become intimidated. I need to learn how to examine a position in the manner of a physician gathering data for a diagnosis.
The final point makes total sense to me, since my vocation has been substance abuse counseling. The gathering of data about a client is crucial to a sound evaluation of his/her condition and the direction treatment should take. I'm not sure why this connection has not been made before, but it is here now. I would not want myself or my students taking the superficial approach towards a client that I've been taking towards chess positions. I've described myself as a "lazy" chess player in past entries, but it is not all laziness. The problems seems to be one of not applying the knowledge I do have to positions in my games.
And so the work in front of me involves applying myself more diligently to positions, and to play as many five minute games as I can using the openings in my repertoire. I will save all of them and send them to Yelena for analysis of what the "problems" are. So whether or not the Northeastern Wisconsin Open is held, I have plenty of work on chess to keep me occupied. And the best part is that I do have ability - I simply need to apply it. Moreover, the work I need to do doesn't involve the expenditure of a single cent.
The final point makes total sense to me, since my vocation has been substance abuse counseling. The gathering of data about a client is crucial to a sound evaluation of his/her condition and the direction treatment should take. I'm not sure why this connection has not been made before, but it is here now. I would not want myself or my students taking the superficial approach towards a client that I've been taking towards chess positions. I've described myself as a "lazy" chess player in past entries, but it is not all laziness. The problems seems to be one of not applying the knowledge I do have to positions in my games.
And so the work in front of me involves applying myself more diligently to positions, and to play as many five minute games as I can using the openings in my repertoire. I will save all of them and send them to Yelena for analysis of what the "problems" are. So whether or not the Northeastern Wisconsin Open is held, I have plenty of work on chess to keep me occupied. And the best part is that I do have ability - I simply need to apply it. Moreover, the work I need to do doesn't involve the expenditure of a single cent.
Monday, November 16, 2009
who played these games, anyway?
Between various weekend obligations, I gave myself time to more closely examine the first two games of the Veteran's Open, as much as an exercise in analysis as anything. It is said that one of the best ways to improve is to critically look over one's own games in order to identify problems and to note patterns that are detrimental to one's play. I played through my games against Parker and Pahl one time, and then got down to business.
This is crazy. Away from the emotional/psychological duress at the board, my view of these games was much more clear, and I am left with the lingering question that sits atop this entry. I'm sure I missed numerous alternatives, but what I found is enough to prove that I am two chess players: one at the board who rarely applies anything of what he has learned, and the other who looks at the moves and doesn't understand what the first was doing. I know that I have written about this before, but here it is, again. In the openings of both games I did not recall simple continuations that I'd gone over again and again. Against Mr. Parker I bypassed totally the idea of Be3, Qd2, and h4-5, etc. which is the simple repertoire selection against the Pirc. Against Ms. Pahl, I played the Classical Sicilian and totally forgot the proper repertoire response to 6. Be3 (6...Ng4) and transposed into some kind of Scheveningen Sicilian. I know, despite not having looked at the other two, that I had the same problem with the King's Indian against Mr. Coons and with the Closed Sicilian against Mr. Lancour. And this is just in the opening.
Moreover, the moves played rarely (if ever) showed evidence of careful consideration of candidate moves and examination of the relevant positions. This is incredibly frustrating. It is exactly the same phenomenon as has occurred in the last three tournaments, resulting in a record of +3-6=2 and a loss of 59 rating points. No, it's not the loss of points that matters - it is a series of weak performances in which I showed very little evidence of having learned anything. Is it a problem with concentration? A feeble memory? Performance anxiety? It seems evident that Greg had better learn and internalize a new and/or more effective way of thinking at the board so that he can play better chess. I thought that I had learned a better thought process, but it vanished as the stress of competition emerged.
This is crazy. Away from the emotional/psychological duress at the board, my view of these games was much more clear, and I am left with the lingering question that sits atop this entry. I'm sure I missed numerous alternatives, but what I found is enough to prove that I am two chess players: one at the board who rarely applies anything of what he has learned, and the other who looks at the moves and doesn't understand what the first was doing. I know that I have written about this before, but here it is, again. In the openings of both games I did not recall simple continuations that I'd gone over again and again. Against Mr. Parker I bypassed totally the idea of Be3, Qd2, and h4-5, etc. which is the simple repertoire selection against the Pirc. Against Ms. Pahl, I played the Classical Sicilian and totally forgot the proper repertoire response to 6. Be3 (6...Ng4) and transposed into some kind of Scheveningen Sicilian. I know, despite not having looked at the other two, that I had the same problem with the King's Indian against Mr. Coons and with the Closed Sicilian against Mr. Lancour. And this is just in the opening.
Moreover, the moves played rarely (if ever) showed evidence of careful consideration of candidate moves and examination of the relevant positions. This is incredibly frustrating. It is exactly the same phenomenon as has occurred in the last three tournaments, resulting in a record of +3-6=2 and a loss of 59 rating points. No, it's not the loss of points that matters - it is a series of weak performances in which I showed very little evidence of having learned anything. Is it a problem with concentration? A feeble memory? Performance anxiety? It seems evident that Greg had better learn and internalize a new and/or more effective way of thinking at the board so that he can play better chess. I thought that I had learned a better thought process, but it vanished as the stress of competition emerged.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
impressions from this weekend
I mentioned posting this item on facebook earlier this morning and added that it will not be chess analysis. My interest today is expressing insights and learning garnered from my +1-3 result at the Wisconsin Veteran's Open. I do plan to work more closely with the games as soon as I am able, probably in conjunction with Yelena next Friday.
Let's begin on some positive notes! Heartfelt congratulations go out to Jim M., who earned a Class D cash prize for his 2.5/5.0 result. This might have been even better but for the fact that both he and his 3rd round opponent thought the other would post their drawn result. By not reporting it, both were forfeited for that game. I couldn't be happier for him. I know that Jim played to a draw with a 1700+ player, and won both games on Sunday. Bravo!
I also want to applaud the work done by the tournament organizers and team of directors. Mike Nietman organized the event and did a great job handling the "Junior" Open as well as the Veteran's section. The hall was quiet and spacious, rounds began on time, and there were no rule/conduct difficulties that I saw. One of the voids of civility that I see in many players is a lack of gratitude for the work that goes on to successfully put on a chess tournament. I was a certified local tournament director back in the 70's (yes, I was a teenager directing events) and I have some sense of the demands of that position. TD's are the first to hear if something isn't just right (chess players tend to be a finicky lot) and rarely hear "well done!" for their efforts. Mike and the others did a wonderful job.
On to my self-analysis. I confess that the drive home on Sunday night was a singularly unpleasant experience for me. One win in four games was not exactly the result I was expecting. Losing to people like Anthony Ray Parker (2100+) and James Coons (1800+) might be predictable by Professor Elo's rating scale. But to lose in the last round to someone lower rated (but clearly a very capable player and a nice guy, I might add) was something beyond humbling. All of the platitudes I tried to think of fell short of consolation. The truth is that I have invested a tidy sum of USD's in the last 4 years in search of improvement. Have I? Results suggest ththat the answer is "no."
With about 36 hours of rest and contemplation having been completed since the event, I have calmed down (Yelena would agree, I think, that the person most critical of me is I). The thoughts I retain and the insights I have from the tournament are new, either in information or in clarity. First and foremost is the fact that I was unable, in four games, to implement any kind of thought process similar to what I have learned from Yelena and from Waldemar at "Better Your Chess." This probably will sound like a psychological problem, but once I begin a game, things like looking for what my opponent's move did and doing a tactical breakdown and looking for candidate moves/falsification vacate my brain. I literally cannot recall even one time during any of the games when I said to myself, "Okay, Greg, how did his move change the position and what are the threats?" Simple, basic stuff that might have prevented some very poor moves.
Secondly, in each of the games I initiated a form of attack (I can't really call them "attacks") without adequate development and preparation. Only in my game against Sandra Pahl did this premature aggression succeed. Against the others I found myself very soon on the defensive and losing. maybe I can frame this as a partial success, in that I have moved from sheer passivity to at least trying something. I have never been one to attack, so it could well be that my skills/knowledge in this are fledgling and that I simply need to learn more about it, as I probably should have at the beginning.
Thirdly, as pointed out by "chesstiger," I fatally neglected my opponent's plans while conducting my own operations. I think the expression "tunnel vision" is an accurate description of what occurred. This was most noticeable in the games against Parker and Lancour. I can claim some tiredness in the fifth round game, but I also simply ignored my opponent's queenside counterattack until it was too strong to parry. Apparently, it is all too easy for me to forget that the opponent is trying to win, too.
The fourth and final insight that I have from the tournament is how quickly I "caved in" once the opponent's counterplay was in motion. As part of my eventual analysis of the games, I will use a chess engine to evaluate the position move-by-move to see how rapidly I turned the game into a lost one. I will, of course, analyze without said engine at first. But I don't trust my positional evaluation sense enough to think that I can accurately appraise a position (maybe this is the fifth insight).
I mentioned this semi-jokingly to my wife on Sunday, but I will no doubt for the first time "qualify" for the reserve section (under 1600) of the Northeast Wisconsin Open in a few months. I mentioned this earlier in the year, and at least one reader seemed dissatisfied about the possibility of my playing in that section. Well, maybe this weekend is a "wake-up call" for me to realize that I am not as strong a player as I have thought, and that maybe I need to compete against players closer to my actual strength in order to implement more successfully what I am trying to learn. I know that my emotional self got rather excited about the prospect of not having to encounter high rated players.
Let's begin on some positive notes! Heartfelt congratulations go out to Jim M., who earned a Class D cash prize for his 2.5/5.0 result. This might have been even better but for the fact that both he and his 3rd round opponent thought the other would post their drawn result. By not reporting it, both were forfeited for that game. I couldn't be happier for him. I know that Jim played to a draw with a 1700+ player, and won both games on Sunday. Bravo!
I also want to applaud the work done by the tournament organizers and team of directors. Mike Nietman organized the event and did a great job handling the "Junior" Open as well as the Veteran's section. The hall was quiet and spacious, rounds began on time, and there were no rule/conduct difficulties that I saw. One of the voids of civility that I see in many players is a lack of gratitude for the work that goes on to successfully put on a chess tournament. I was a certified local tournament director back in the 70's (yes, I was a teenager directing events) and I have some sense of the demands of that position. TD's are the first to hear if something isn't just right (chess players tend to be a finicky lot) and rarely hear "well done!" for their efforts. Mike and the others did a wonderful job.
On to my self-analysis. I confess that the drive home on Sunday night was a singularly unpleasant experience for me. One win in four games was not exactly the result I was expecting. Losing to people like Anthony Ray Parker (2100+) and James Coons (1800+) might be predictable by Professor Elo's rating scale. But to lose in the last round to someone lower rated (but clearly a very capable player and a nice guy, I might add) was something beyond humbling. All of the platitudes I tried to think of fell short of consolation. The truth is that I have invested a tidy sum of USD's in the last 4 years in search of improvement. Have I? Results suggest ththat the answer is "no."
With about 36 hours of rest and contemplation having been completed since the event, I have calmed down (Yelena would agree, I think, that the person most critical of me is I). The thoughts I retain and the insights I have from the tournament are new, either in information or in clarity. First and foremost is the fact that I was unable, in four games, to implement any kind of thought process similar to what I have learned from Yelena and from Waldemar at "Better Your Chess." This probably will sound like a psychological problem, but once I begin a game, things like looking for what my opponent's move did and doing a tactical breakdown and looking for candidate moves/falsification vacate my brain. I literally cannot recall even one time during any of the games when I said to myself, "Okay, Greg, how did his move change the position and what are the threats?" Simple, basic stuff that might have prevented some very poor moves.
Secondly, in each of the games I initiated a form of attack (I can't really call them "attacks") without adequate development and preparation. Only in my game against Sandra Pahl did this premature aggression succeed. Against the others I found myself very soon on the defensive and losing. maybe I can frame this as a partial success, in that I have moved from sheer passivity to at least trying something. I have never been one to attack, so it could well be that my skills/knowledge in this are fledgling and that I simply need to learn more about it, as I probably should have at the beginning.
Thirdly, as pointed out by "chesstiger," I fatally neglected my opponent's plans while conducting my own operations. I think the expression "tunnel vision" is an accurate description of what occurred. This was most noticeable in the games against Parker and Lancour. I can claim some tiredness in the fifth round game, but I also simply ignored my opponent's queenside counterattack until it was too strong to parry. Apparently, it is all too easy for me to forget that the opponent is trying to win, too.
The fourth and final insight that I have from the tournament is how quickly I "caved in" once the opponent's counterplay was in motion. As part of my eventual analysis of the games, I will use a chess engine to evaluate the position move-by-move to see how rapidly I turned the game into a lost one. I will, of course, analyze without said engine at first. But I don't trust my positional evaluation sense enough to think that I can accurately appraise a position (maybe this is the fifth insight).
I mentioned this semi-jokingly to my wife on Sunday, but I will no doubt for the first time "qualify" for the reserve section (under 1600) of the Northeast Wisconsin Open in a few months. I mentioned this earlier in the year, and at least one reader seemed dissatisfied about the possibility of my playing in that section. Well, maybe this weekend is a "wake-up call" for me to realize that I am not as strong a player as I have thought, and that maybe I need to compete against players closer to my actual strength in order to implement more successfully what I am trying to learn. I know that my emotional self got rather excited about the prospect of not having to encounter high rated players.
Monday, November 9, 2009
sunday's games...very sad indeed
I will post the games only. Sorry, but I have no time today for any analysis.
I could have resigned with a clear conscience on move 30 in the second game.
I could have resigned with a clear conscience on move 30 in the second game.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
veteran's open, day one
I've got about an hour before round four begins, so this entry will be the posting of my two games yesterday. At least I can say that I minimized "drifting" and did better at falsifying my candidate moves. I am, however, still much too inconsistent when it comes to examining each position.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
chess clinic #5
Well, Bob Long and IM Andrew Martin can add this chess clinic to the list of successes they have had with these endeavors. I believe there were 21 players at this clinic, a number that has never been reached before. Everyone in attendance received a good set of lessons on "must know" endgames, a game between Kasparov and Ivanchuk from the late 1980's, and some practice analyzing two games where one player is definitely worse/losing and manages to come back and win. Andrew was his usual gregarious and entertaining self, and it was good to see Bob enjoying the fruits of his hard labor. Putting on one of these clinics must take a significant amount of preparation, and I commend Bob for his behind the scenes work.
It's nice to be able to attend a chess-related event, even if it is several hundred miles away. The drive there wasn't at all bad once I got through the driving rain in northern Illinois. I left early enough this morning to witness a marvelous sunrise, and had an uneventful return trip. Having the chess clinic at the hotel where I stayed proved to be very convenient, even though I think they could have given Bob a bigger room for whatever he ends up paying them. There were several attendees who stayed at the hotel, and I brought my dinner business to the hotel restaurant both nights.
The one thing that troubled me about the clinic was a resumption of my tendency to not see enough of the positional and tactical aspects of a position when looking for a plan. During the "guess Kasparov's move" activity, I was unable to get even one of the "critical" moves during the game. I felt myself gradually losing confidence in myself so that by the end I wasn't able to focus well on the position. The last opportunity to guess the move was a debacle, since I had selected the right move, but followed Andrew's "so how would you deal with this?" in response to my idea and didn't look to see that his retort did not rule out my suggested move.
On the other hand, I was able to recall at least one endgame strategy from my studies and correctly answered one of the endgame positions. I got a chance to meet one of those who regularly follow this weblog; a very nice man who had many positives to say about my efforts. Everyone was given a Chessbase or Convekta DVD at the end of the clinic - I selected one of Andrew's - on the Sicilian Dragon (by the time I selected amny were gone), which I may never play but I don't think I should ever rule out anything. I am simply not a strong enough player to do that. Regardless, this was an excellent time and a welcome respite from work (although I did grade papers for several hours on Friday night!).
It's nice to be able to attend a chess-related event, even if it is several hundred miles away. The drive there wasn't at all bad once I got through the driving rain in northern Illinois. I left early enough this morning to witness a marvelous sunrise, and had an uneventful return trip. Having the chess clinic at the hotel where I stayed proved to be very convenient, even though I think they could have given Bob a bigger room for whatever he ends up paying them. There were several attendees who stayed at the hotel, and I brought my dinner business to the hotel restaurant both nights.
The one thing that troubled me about the clinic was a resumption of my tendency to not see enough of the positional and tactical aspects of a position when looking for a plan. During the "guess Kasparov's move" activity, I was unable to get even one of the "critical" moves during the game. I felt myself gradually losing confidence in myself so that by the end I wasn't able to focus well on the position. The last opportunity to guess the move was a debacle, since I had selected the right move, but followed Andrew's "so how would you deal with this?" in response to my idea and didn't look to see that his retort did not rule out my suggested move.
On the other hand, I was able to recall at least one endgame strategy from my studies and correctly answered one of the endgame positions. I got a chance to meet one of those who regularly follow this weblog; a very nice man who had many positives to say about my efforts. Everyone was given a Chessbase or Convekta DVD at the end of the clinic - I selected one of Andrew's - on the Sicilian Dragon (by the time I selected amny were gone), which I may never play but I don't think I should ever rule out anything. I am simply not a strong enough player to do that. Regardless, this was an excellent time and a welcome respite from work (although I did grade papers for several hours on Friday night!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
