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.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Sorry to hear that your results were sub-par. I know how disheartening it can be. (We must be gluttons for punishment.
Nevertheless, it’s still fun!)
I see no shame in playing in U1600 events. Five of my first eight events after “coming out of retirement” three years ago were U1600, and two of the other three turned out to be U1600 as a result of how the organizers configured the sections on the day the event was played, based on who actually entered.
Chess coaches seem to always encourage their students to play up a section so that they will face better players and learn more from having to deal with better moves. That’s fine and dandy if the student has the potential to be on a high learning curve, i.e. is a youngster. But at this stage in life, gaining the confidence that I can consistently beat players at my current level, before taking on greater challenges, feels like a greater psychological/emotional need. Any improvement we might be able to demonstrate at this age (btw I turned 51 last week, so I am ‘the same age’ as you until your birthday later this month) is going to be much more gradual than that of youngsters.
Don’t remember if I mentioned this before, but are you familiar with the concept of “the U curve” in learning? The theory states, based on extensive observation of real life learners, that newly acquired knowledge can disrupt previously acquired knowledge. Until the new knowledge has been thoroughly integrated with the old, observable performance often takes a dip.
The classic example is of young children whose mother tongue is English. They typically learn many of the irregular past tense verbs such as went, came, ate, gave, bought, and so on before they learn the regular -ed past tense form. The reason for this is clear. Words such as went are very common, especially for young children, while the -ed form is often not clearly audible or distinguishable to young ears.
It’s usually around the age of four or five when they become aware of the regular past tense form. Suddenly you can hear many children at this stage saying “goed, comed, eated, gived, and buyed.” Where did they “learn” this? Did they hear their parents or teachers saying that? They knew the irregular forms before. What happens is that they over- generalize the regular past tense form to all verbs. After a couple of weeks, or perhaps a few months, these children figure out (probably at the subconscious level) that some verbs use the regular -ed form while others do not. So, it seems that in order to learn a new grammatical form, children often appear to “unlearn” something they already knew. Later they are able to use both rules and then real progress in their language development is evident.
Another favorite example comes from Tiger Wood’s quest to become the best golfer he could be.
After he won The PGA Masters tournament, for the first time, at the tender age of 21, there was an expectation that he would just keep on winning everything in sight. But he didn’t win another major tournament for the next two years. After Tiger’s first victory in the Masters, he watched videotapes of himself and thought that his swing was “terrible.” So he decided that he needed to improve it. He began doing it differently from the way he had been doing it, and the result was higher scores. It appeared that he had gotten worse. Eventually he became skilled with his new swing, and subsequently he was so much better than everyone else that he was truly able to fulfill the promise of domination that had been expected. But it did take time. He had to have faith that he would, eventually, be a better player if he worked on his swing and improved his form.
Some years ago, a former colleague of mine was quick to apply this principle of the U Curve to his own process of learning chess.
Without many opportunities for over the board play here in northeast Wisconsin, it is difficult to put into practise the knowledge acquired through much hard work in the training sessions you have with your coaches. It is only with practise that the lessons become internalized/second nature for tournament play. Jim Rowe and Ryan Braewer have worked very hard to get a chess club going in town but there have been many "bumps in the road" the latest being finding a place to hold the meetings. A local chess club would be a great way to get the OTB practise we need. I'm going to talk with Jim and Ryan to see if there's anything I can do to help. Do you have any idea how many chess players there are in our area that might be interested in participating in a club?
Greg: Welcome to my world! Chess can be incredibly frustrating at times. We put the work in, we get a good position, we manage our time well, and then BAM! something happens and everything we gained just gets messed up, and we lose.
I thought I would do better if I played slower time controls, and had more time to work out the complexities of a given position. It hasn't worked out that way. Instead I've found that I forget about things I've worked out. I end out making a move that I rejected several moves earlier because I forgot why I rejected it. The other problem is having a solution that no longer works because the position has changed since I initially came up with that defense.
It goes back to asking the questions "How has my opponent's move changed the position?" "Do I have to continue to concern myself with x, or is y more important now?" "Does my attack (defense) still work now that he has made this move?" Probably disciplining ourselves to continually ask these types of questions is more important then opening theory or tactics. Often I recognize the tactic, come up with a defense, but forget that my defense isn't going to work because of moves that have been played since I came up with the defensive plan.
es: You make a good point about playing in one's own section versus playing up. Maybe at our age (I'm a few years older then both of you) there are less benefits for playing up. I've had my share of debates with anonymous posters on my blog who criticize me for playing up when I can't beat people within 100 points of my own rating.
At times I will play up a section in order to avoid playing the kids rated 1400 - 1500 who are playing up one section. I get this attitude that if I'm going to lose, I'd rather lose to players higher rated, then lose to some underrated player.
Often I get more satisfaction from losing to a higher rated player when I've put up a good fight, then crushing some player that I out-rate by some large amount of points.
I'm still debating whether I'll play in the under 1800 section or the under 2000 section when I play in the American Open in a few weeks. The last time I played in my own section 3 time zones away it was ugly. I'll have the same jet lag issues I had in June.
Apollo 17: The only person I personally know who has a strong interest in chess is Dave Lutzewitz.
Eric: "newly acquired knowledge can disrupt previously acquired knowledge. Until the new knowledge has been thoroughly integrated with the old, observable performance often takes a dip."
I'd never heard of this before. I know that good learning is when you can take a new idea, fact, or concept and somehow attach it to existing knowledge, but I wasn't aware of the possibility of temporarily disrupting the existing knowledge.
How did you friend implement the idea?
Polly: I can definitely relate to that. I think I also don't know how to THINK about chess. I've gotten Dan Heisman's new book and the first chapter is exactly me! I have no clear idea of what I am doing.
A good chess regime would be theory (study) 50 percent and playing (exercising and implementing the learned theory) 50 percent. Its like somebody playing a piano, he may be good at the theory (reading the music sheets) but if he doesn't practise it several times his music will sound horrible.
However, not everybody has the chance to do this 50 percent playing otb so here comes the internet in handy although its not comparable with otb play but its better then nothing.
And dont worry to much, its like es-trick says, it can be that your rating goes down when trying to implement new knowlegde but eventually it all falls into place and one gets back to a rating one thrully deserves.
So give it time, do it step by step, and just play for the love of the game, not the rating.
chesstiger: Thank you for this very sage advice. It is undeniably true that more playing is needed. Rating points are much less imprtant than how I feel about my play.
My colleague's 'implementation' of the 'U Curve' theory was simply to be more relaxed and less stressed out by the expectation of always seeing steady improvement in his game, that's all.
Eric: That is more than enough to help me! :)
Rating as a gauge, methinks is easier to swallow at the class A,B levels as far as a sense of accuracy.
A class D player is likely to miss tactics, but positionally may play a great game, so if the game has few tactics, or the tactical stream is very narrow (or their opponent blunders), then it's possibe that they can perform far above their rating.
As far as opponents plans, I tend to see things in terms of development. Even an attack on something is equivalent to an edge in development.
Then there are threats which can be like tactical wormholes because one thing can or does lead to another. You might describe these things as weak squares, future pins and whatnot.
"I think I also don't know how to THINK about chess."
This is where books don't help much and having a coach can really make a difference. When Yelena's analyzing your games, you should try to understand the process by which Yelena arrives at an evaluation of a position and then chooses a move. She should also be giving you exercises to practise this skill and observing you as you try to solve them, to correct the mistakes you're making.
Looking over the games, I can sense your unfamiliarity with the positions you get into after the opening. I realize you've picked up some new openings recently. At this point I think you just need more experience playing them. There's a piece of advice sometimes given to beginners at Go: lose your first hundred games as quickly as possible. Try it :-)
I didn't notice the ratings until now. You were "in" all but the first game, IMHO.
There doesn't seem much of a reason for you to play down any further. Improve your attack, that is what it comes down to, IMHO.
Sure, I guess from a competitive standpoint you could play down further and pick up some points, but I don't know how that would mean you are then making better moves. ;-)
LinuxGuy: Thoughts on your comments - I am very much needing to discard the "power" of ratings. The sacrifice against Mr. Coons was not well-thought out. I haven't looked more closely at the game, but I know there are many improvements that will be found. He defended well. In the final game, g4-g5 was totally silly, I agree. I got caught up in trying to control f6 and didn't consider all factors. There may be some value in playing under 1600 while learning new openings. I don't know. Thanks for all the input!
Aziridine: You are exactly correct about the unfamiliarity with openings. Heck, I even forgot at the board moves in every oprning I played, thus showing I don't understand them as well as needed.
I like the 100 losses maxim! I'm working on it. :)
I waste too much time on openings, and plan on wasting some more of that time, like many others I suspect. I also fear ratings (everyones!) when I shouldn't. hehe.
Some players have a cautious style (I guess) and they may let you take advantage of that, but you really need to get that kill-shot attack down. It's more like study 100 king-side attack combinations rather than play a 100 games.
During the rest of the game, you can let them school you in the opening and on the ending, but finding the kill against the enemy king is on you. There is no amount of games played or studied that will give that to you, you have to work on it with puzzles and such.
LinuxGuy: I agree with this. It's back to basics for this boy...
If you're trying to learn how to attack, I couldn't recommend Vuckovic's Art of Attack in Chess more highly. I bought it as a B-class player and didn't really get what it was trying to say, but then I came back to it a couple years later when I was A-class and it made a huge impression on me the second time around. What impressed me in particular was Vukovic's idea that one had to fulfill certain preconditions for an attack to succeed and the way he used Alekhine's games to demonstrate this concept. Maybe it's a little over your head at this point, but if Yelena is familiar with and enthusiastic about this book it might be something she could help you work through.
Aziridine: I do have Vuckovic's book and I've gone through it once on my own, but I cannot say I absorbed it very well. Yelena has told me quite candidly that there are many basic things about chess that I have not studied and that I am basically playing "catch-up" in that regard. It's no wonder that I am not playing well, since I need remedial work.
LinuxGuy: I appreciate all the ideas you shared in your two comments. One of the things I notice in the games I have annotated is that my opponents make serious errors (not blunders) on a number of occasions but I normally have no clue that they have done so. After I worked through the game against Mr. Parker, I added as "kibitzer" Fritz 6 for evaluation purposes. I was totally off in my evaluations and Parker made several moves that would have eroded his advantage, had I known what to do differently.
Post a Comment