Greg's Chess Progress

just one move...

2012-01-30T13:17:00.000-08:00

I resumed lessons with Yelena this morning, with a renewed path of learning that will concentrate on specific middle game themes in openings I play. I mentioned to her that I have badly misplayed a number of attacks in the King's Indian Defense, and the whole hour was spent on looking at 4 games where Black played ...g5-g4, even though it looks impossible to play this move in the given positions. Yelena said that this is a very common theme in the King's Indian and that I need to play through many more games to get the proper feel for attacking ideas. They were marvelous attacting games, for sure, but I also noticed that if Black hadn't kept pounding away in the games, White would have been able to turn the game around very quickly. I now have a better idea of what is meant when it is said that the King's Indian is an exceptionally sharp, combative opening.

My "homework" for next week is to send her some of my online games (losses only) in which my efforts as Black in the King's Indian went astray. In my mind I thought I could provide her with dozens of such losses, but in reality I could find only six(!) in the last 14 months. As I scolled through my "Online Games" database, I learned that I have won many more games than I have lost with this opening, but that I remember the losses much more clearly and thought there were many more. I think this is a psychological problem that actually hearkens back to my couple of lessons with IM Andrew Martin back in 2005: I give myself little or no credit for winning, but beat myself up inside for playing poorly when I lose.

Yelena mentioned that in her view I simply do not have a very aggressive spirit (I told her I simply am not "mean enough" at the chess board) and that I need to somehow realize deep down that this is a war game and that my opponent is trying to "kill" me during play. I realized while looking at the games I lost that I normally mix up variations (still not being clear on theory) and diverge from the well-trodden paths, but still end up with what appear to be decent positions. My intention is to attack and to create threats, but at some point I relax those efforts, drift around, and allow the opponent to counterattack. This is simply not something to be done in this opening! I overreact to threats and stop looking at what I can do, allowing the opponent to take control.

the "eyes" have it!

2012-01-25T18:32:00.000-08:00

Well, today was eye surgery day, and in the estimation of the surgeon I underwent a "perfect procedure." There will be several weeks of daily eye drops and frequent vision checks, because the condition I have, macular puckering, remedies itself gradually following the operation. My doctor said that he has every reason to believe that nearly 100% of my previous eyesight will be restored. I am very happy with the care I received and I want to thank those readers and friends who sent their good wishes along for me.

As an American, I hope for the best results from our two representatives at the Tata Steel chess tournament in Holland. Gata Kamsky has an equal score and Hikaru Nakamura is at +1, so these two players are not making fools of themselves, but they are also not quite in the same league as the current tournament leader, GM Levon Aronian, who is on +5 with only a loss to Magnus Carlsen marring an otherwise undefeated record. Chessbase.com is reporting that Aronian's performance rating is 2944 so far, with three rounds to go. His remaining games are against GM Radjabov, currently in 4th place, GM Gelfand (currently at -2), and tail ender GM Daniel Navarra, who is on -5. Second place in the "A" event is held down by GM Ivanchuk, currently undefeated and trailing Aronian by a full point, while Carlsen and Radjabov share 3rd and 4th places, 1.5 points behind the leader. It's quite likely that Aronian will win this tournament going away.

While the chess world (appropriate) lauds the skills of GM Carlsen and awaits the upcoming championship match between GM Gelfand and current World Champion Anand, one might wonder who exactly is Levon Aronian and what is his chess all about. He is rated 2805, which is clearly in the "Super-GM" range, and he is clearly one of the up and coming talents in international chess. Honestly, I don't know much about this player and want to find out more abut him. If any readers out there can pint me in the direction of articles about GM Aronian or books about him, I will greatly appreciate it.

feedback and ideas

2012-01-15T08:51:00.000-08:00

I offer my thanks to those readers who posted comments related to my last two blog entries. There is much to think about contained in that feedback. It is helpful for me to have an idea of what is a good time control for training games, and also to examine once again the importance of opening knowledge, principles, and understanding in addition to or in contrast with variations of theory. The research cited by Farbror the Guru about the value of opening theory for club players is very interesting to me. My own games tend to show that theoretical lines are not followed very far, although I admit that in more than half those instances, it is I who strayed from known theory and not my opponent!

Last night I played an interesting game at a time control of 8 minutes. I had Black and played a King's Indian in which I know I mixed up two variations (aha!). My opponent played well and I ended up having to sacrifice a pawn for some king safety via an exchange of queens. We were both under a minute left in a knight versus bishop endgame where he was a pawn up but my king was more active and my knight was attacking some weak queenside pawns. I had about 25 seconds more time than he did and, with no time increment, I knew I had two options: to play quickly (and sloppily) and try to get him to overstep first or to use a bit more time to think about the position.

Unfortunately, I did not reckon on the third option: getting so caught up in trying to decide which course to take that I overstepped trying to blitz out moves at the very end! I think a win for my opponent was the "fair result" (whatever that means) and I got a refresher on how I get myself into time trouble by trying to figure out the "right" thing to do instead of just moving. When you have less than a minute, you ought to be playing on instinct and intuition and quick sight of tactics anyway. Without a time increment, the end of a game is like, as IM Krush once stated, "two monkeys just punching the clock."

opinions, opinions....

2012-01-10T12:40:00.000-08:00

It seems that the chess world is as full of diverse and contradictory opinion as is any other arena of endeavor. So different are we human beings, and so adept at being contentious can we be, that this is not a surprising observation. However unremarkable it may be, the array of differences of opinion about how best to learn chess surely vexes me. It seems to me that there are as many views of how best to study chess as there are opening variations. And because of this I find myself frustrated and rather "stuck."

Some sources (by this I mean various learning media, the writings of prominent chess players and trainers, and my own conversations and e-mail exchanges with same) seem to emphasize the playing and studying (annotation being one suggested method) of one's own games as the preferred way to improve. Ideally, the player will have access to a much stronger player who can help identify strengths and problems and help to correct problems. Others suggest additionally that a chess engine can be of immense value to help a player improve, but I am not at all sure what specifically this means.

Other sources seem to suggest that one can substantially enhance progress in chess by a combination of playing, studying, viewing chess DVDs, and by having private lessons. Obviously, the variety of approaches seems desirable, and I myself have followed this kind of regimen, but there is a limit to available time and financial resources. I have noted before that I have plenty of chess-related resources to look at, more than I need for the rest of my natural life. At least, in this area of learning, I've never read or heard anyone say that you can play better chess by study alone, with no playing. :)

I've heard and read opinions about the most important parts of the game to study, too. Some people are convinced that the endgame is the most important part of chess to know because you will improve opening and middlegame play by improving here. Others say that tactics are the most important thing, because such a high percentage of games (especially among club players) are decided by tactics. Others say that tactics "flow from a positionally superior game" (I forget who wrote this, but I recall it verbatim) implying, I guess, that positional factors matter a great deal, too. Most stronger players seem to discourage weaker players from looking too closely at opening theory, by my own recent play suggests that I need to know at least SOME and to be able to retain the theory.

I have had several different people suggest ideas about learning openings, at least to a point of some familiarity and reasonable competence. I've read everything from replaying theory over and over to trying to play countless blitz games online using openings one is learning. There seems to be a camp that tries to dissuade people from learning variations and to learn instead opening principles and ideas. Yet, as we all know, one may follow all the good principles and ideas and get killed by an atypical move, novelty or tactical shot.

I invite readers to weigh in on this general topic of "opinions" and on any of the specifics that come to mind.

chess progress

2012-01-09T11:33:00.000-08:00

I find out the day after tomorrow all about this eye surgery I need, and I have a good number of questions for the surgeon and staff. Obviously, having ultrathin needles placed deeply within one of my ocular orbs (forgive me, readers, but I really love that medical term for "eyeballs") calls for some level (high) of reassurance from the medical staff. But there are other concerns: my level of consciousness during the procedure, what kind of post-operative care I need, risk of infection or complications, limitations to vision and for how long, time off from work (if any), etc. I don't pretend to know anything about this kind of very delicate surgery, and I have no idea how it will affect my life, my study of chess included.

My work supervisor is a nurse by trade, and she informed me that there are no pain receptors in the actual eyeball itself, so it's quite likely that this will be an outpatient procedure and that I will be conscious throughout. She also indicated that I will likely be given some kind of medication to reduce my anxiety (no kidding...!) so I'll need to be transported to and from the hospital. Again, what happens after that is a total unknown, but I think just getting past the surgery itself is a sufficient accomplishment in the near term. I am holding off on any chess plans until I know more - even lessons are reliant upon my vision (as my ability to visualize chess positions leaves something to be desired).

I note that after a blistering start in his most recent tournament, Hikaru Nakamura crashed at the end with three straight losses (to Morozevich, tournament winner Giri, and Ivanchuk, so it's not like he was playing "weak" players) to finish third on tiebreaks. It was interesting to me to note how detailed was Chessbase.com's reporting of Nakamura's collapse at the end of this tournament. I couldn't tell if it was simply the extremes of performance he demonstrated, some kind of (partially) muted glee that the American kid fell apart, or something in between. I know that the United States is often demonized in other parts of the world, but I have no evidence that this tendency was at work here, of course. I just found it interesting.

The last couple of weeks have found me working on learning some main lines and general principles of defending against 1. d4. I seem to do a little better with Black against 1. e4, at least in online games, so I want to strengthen my understanding of playing black against the queen's pawn. I also need to review my repertoire against the various Black defenses to 1.e4, since I've been playing rather badly against openings like the French and Caro-Kann. With my memory being what it is, I cannot afford a lot of openings "down time." Just playing through some games and variations is helpful, although at times I know I ask Yelena questions the answers to which we've already covered.

on a more sober note

2012-01-03T15:11:00.000-08:00

Today I underwent a series of tests to determine why the vision in my right eye has deteriorated significantly since the end of July, when I had my last eye exam. My "general practitioner" eye doctor was honest enough to tell me, upon re-examination, that I have the beginnings of a cataract in this right eye, but he believes this is not the cause of the problem. So he referred me to a specialist. People kept asking me if the vision problem looks like there's a film over my eye or something is blurring my vision and I kept saying, "no, it's more like I am simply lacking the right number of pixels in my field of vision." Interestingly, when I told this to the specialist, he knew EXACTLY what I meant and did some tests to confirm what he already surmised: I have a membrane growing over the retina in my right eye.

He told me that my description was "insightful" and that the condition is not uncommon, although in this case the growth is very pronounced and this membrane is actually pulling tissue away from the back of my eye. He showed me a scan of the "normal" configuration and then mine, and the difference is so great even I could see what he meant. This means that I will be undergoing a very delicate surgical procedure to remove this membrane. In most cases, near 20/20 vision is restored (in my case, with corrective lenses) but there is a chance it won't be perfect. They use, said the specialist, the third smallest needle in the world in order to do this surgery, but the doctor to whom he referred me is the best he knows of.

I joked on Facebook that maybe my recent obvious blunders have not been just because of weak play. Even thought this may not really be true, I do know that my field of vision on the right side is very much impaired. I have a pre-operative appointment next Wednesday, to meet the surgeon and to learn what will happen, so all plans to play competitively are on hold while this issue is addressed.

happy new year!

2012-01-01T17:29:00.000-08:00

And so 2012 begins with a little bit of a snowstorm here in Wisconsin, USA, and with a fair amount of time spent by yours truly examining more closely the King's Indian Defense. I am eager to get 2011 behind me as far and as quickly as possible. My "progress" in chess was hindered by any number of factors, and I approach 2012 with a renewed zest for learning more about this wonderful game. I have spent the past week essaying to become more familiar with the openings in my repertoire. I feel odd about even calling it a "repertoire" since I am so weak in my understanding and familiarity with the openings I want to play. But perhaps I can use the word "collection" and feel comfortable with that.

I have so much to work on and to improve in chess that on many occasions I am inclined to just give up on the whole endeavor. I continue to make stupid mistakes and to overlook simple threats. I just played a game in which I had a superior position and then just dropped a rook. For no reason whatsoever. I just didn't attend to the threat. I have returned to the "tunnel vision" play of the past in which I become so intent on what I am doing that I seem to forget I have an opponent. This is maddening, to put it mildly. And yet I am drawn to this game even more so than I was a year ago. I may have to reconcile myself to the fact that I will never be more than a weak club player, but that is such a depressing thought I do not want to entertain it for more than a few seconds.

I want to get better. I aspire to be able to "see" the board better than I do, so as to eliminate the ridiculous blunders and "blind spots" that plague me. I want to understand openings better, and to have a stronger sense of strategy and tactics. But I do not see how I can do this while I continue to play like someone who just read the rules that were included in the three dollar plastic chess set he got at the grocery store. So I have this energy to improve that is stifled by my obvious flaws as a player. This is the challenge I face as I enter the new year.

Happy New Year to everyone!

christmas, 2011

2011-12-25T13:07:00.000-08:00

I want to wish all Christian readers a very Merry Christmas, all Jewish readers a Happy Hanukkah, and everyone else a Happy Winter Solstice. The days will be getting longer now. :) I have spent the better part of this day cooking and putting together several bookcases which now contain much of my chess book collection. This is probably a common statement among chess players, but I could cease to purchase chess books today and never finish going through all of what I have by the time I assume room temperature. And this doesn't even take into account the DVDs and chess software from Convekta and Chessbase.

IM Dembo broke a three game losing streak at the Women's Team World Championship today by drawing in 25 moves with GM Humpy Koneru. She mentioned to me yesterday that this is clearly not an event for her level at this time, since she defines a suitable event as one in which a player can score 60%. I admire her attitude about the whole thing - I think I was more upset as her student than she was about having lost the games. Yesterday she told me she was going to play ping pong with some of the other players. I am not sure I would want to set foot out of my hotel room. :)

I am hoping that the year 2012 provides for me more and better opportunities for chess study, playing, and learning than this nearly ended year did. From a chess standpoint, I regard myself as having squandered a number of competitive opportunities and to have regressed somewhat in my status and strength as a chess player. It's easy to come up with excuses and rationalizations for this. However, making changes is vital, and now that I enjoy a substantially increased amount of freedom I need to better apply myself to that task.

trying to post those games...again

2011-12-21T09:16:00.000-08:00

Well, I tried once again to use a chess game publishing website and couldn't get the diagrams to show up. So I think I'll just post the PGN and leave it at that. Sorry, folks.

[Event "Blitz"]
[Date "2011.12.12"]
[White "Dembo"]
[Black "Kosteniuk"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C42"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. dxc3 Be7 7. Bf4 Nd7
8. Qd2 O-O 9. O-O-O Nc5 10. h4 c6 11. h5 d5 12. Nd4 Ne4 13. Qe3 Re8 14. f3 Nc5
15. Qd2 Ne6 16. Nxe6 Bxe6 17. g4 Qa5 18. Kb1 b5 19. a3 c5 20. h6 g6 21. Bg5 Bd6
22. Bf4 Bf8 23. Bd3 b4 24. cxb4 cxb4 25. b3 Qxa3 26. Be5 Qa5 27. Bb2 Qc7 28.
Bxg6 fxg6 29. Qd4 Bg7 30. hxg7 Re7 31. Rxh7 1-0

[Event "Blitz"][Date "2011.12.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dembo"]
[Black "Lahno"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B09"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. f4 Nf6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Na6 7. O-O c5 8. d5
Bg4 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Nb4 11. a3 Nxd3 12. cxd3 Nd7 13. Qg3 e6 14. f5 Be5 15.
Qf3 Bd4+ 16. Kh1 Ne5 17. Qg3 Qd7 18. Bh6 Rfe8 19. Rf4 Bxc3 20. bxc3 exd5 21.
exd5 Qb5 22. Qg5 Nd7 23. fxg6 fxg6 24. Raf1 Re5 25. Rf8+ Rxf8 26. Rxf8+ Nxf8
27. Qf6 1-0

Reader "chesstiger" noted that I'd deleted my own posting of these games, so I want to honor that interest by presenting these two blitz games. Yes, they are merely G/3 minutes plus 2 seconds per move affairs, but still - to see these tactics so quickly impresses me a great deal.

as the holidays approach...

2011-12-14T10:01:00.000-08:00

I am typing this from work during my lunch hour because my home PC has been taken hostage by some malware and I cannot get online. Norton Antivirus is on the way, however, so hopefully I can get it cleaned up soon. One of the best features of working at a technical college is that I have available any number of information systems experts (both instructors and the school's own computer people) whose knowledge may be accessed at any time. I am somewhat discouraged at how vulnerable we make ourselves when we try to utilize technology - it seems that no matter what human beings try to produce that is helpful, someone will corrupt and abuse. I guess this is human nature.

IM Dembo is currently competing in the World Mind Games competition in China, where she has performed credibly, I think, in both the Women's Rapid and Blitz competitions. She is rated #13 of 16 female participants, and placed 8th in the rapid and 7th in the blitz competitions. Today is the blindfold event, and I know she has two draws, including one with GM Stefanova. She sent me a couple of blitz games, wins over K. Lahno and A. Kosteniuk, who both placed higher in the final crosstable than she did.

GM Nakamura rebounded after a disastrous last place finish at the Tal Memorial to take second place in the recently completed London Chess Classic behind tournament winner Vladimir Kramnik. Using the 3-1-0 scoring system, he edged out Magnus Carlsen by a point, despite Carlsen's victory in their head-to-head matchup. Nakamura also lost to carlsen at the Tal memorial, and I wonder if the American Grandmaster is going to be the perennial victim of Carlsen as the future unfolds. Reports from various chess sources say that Nakamura is now working with Garry Kasparov (who once coached Carlsen, and not that long ago) so maybe there are aspects of the Swede's game, known to Kasparov, that Hikaru will be able to exploit.

Up until the tournament in China, I'd had three recent lessons with Yelena, which seemed to help me regain some chess-playing capability at Playchess.com. Correlation may not always be causation, but in this case I think it is.

out of shape, chess-wise

2011-11-29T12:27:00.001-08:00

I had two chess lessons with Yelena during this past week, one on Thanksgiving morning and the other on Monday morning as a way to celebrate the beginning of my 55th year on the planet. The first lesson left me quite frustrated and somewhat discouraged. I really haven't been able to work seriously at chess for a while, and to say that I did poorly at the "find the winning continuation" positions we examined would be charitable to me. I couldn't see much of anything, even fairly simple or obvious moves, and I found my thoughts to be swirling around in my head with no real cohesion and focus. I am sure that it was a frustrating experience for Yelena, too. One of the observations she made near the end of the lesson was that I need to stop defending myself, both in life and in chess.

The second lesson, yesterday, was somewhat better. I got into a lot of explaning myself and even making excuses why this or that move wouldn't work, all while neglecting simple, forcing moves that were the solutions. This theme of explaining, justifying, and rationalizing my thought processes is a specific manifestation of what I find myself doing in life right now, a "microcosm," if you will. My personal life has been tumultuous, and I have been blamed and scaprgoated quite a bit in recent weeks. Long ago, I told myself that I needed to stop justifying my existence on the planet - I am here, and if people don't like it, that's too bad. The recent relapse into a self-defensive posture has permeated my chess, too.

By the end of yesterday's lesson, I felt more like my old self, but only after repeated "reminders" that I don't need to explain my moves and to just play what looks best during these lessons. I am afraid to make a mistake, so I hesitate and vacilate between moves and ideas. Yelena said that all I really need to do is to tell her what piece needs to move to which square, and that words are not really necessary with these exercises. If it is the wrong move or idea, so be it. But losing a chess game is not an unpardonable sin, nor is making mistakes during lessons.

As I have accumulated from these lessons over 300 chess positions to study and review, I decided to begin doing just that with them in between lessons. I have saved every position in a database and now am creating a new one for endgames and another for themed positions. I review and play through each one carefully, then add it to the new database. Just getting back into looking at chess in this way has created for me a more positive outlook.

the long lost second capablanca game

2011-11-16T11:20:00.001-08:00

What follows is the second game of Capablanca that IM Dembo and I examined, as promised many weeks ago. I apologize for the tardiness of this effort.

We don't see many "Four Knight's Games" at the top levels these days, but it was not an uncommon weapon back in 1913. Black's 4th move is essentially a waste of time, since White intends to capture on c6. More usual replies are 4 ...Nd4 and 4 ...Bb4. With his 8th move, Capablanca not only defends the e4-pawn again, but makes room for redeployment of the Nc3 to e3 via d1. This is the kind of move that I would never consider - simple, but effective (and necessary since both b5 and d5 have been taken away from the queen's knight). Both c4 and f5 are attractive squares for the knight once it gets to e3. Black's 11th move releases the pin on the Nf3, but he wants to hinder the occupation of f5 by a White steed. It's interesting to note how White is already calling the shots in the position by move 13. Capablanca shows some courage by playing 14. f4. His judgement tells him that his initiative on the kingside will prevent Black from exploiting the somewhat airy position of the White king. Black has little choice but to extinguish one of the powerful knights - White was threatening further advance with 15. g4 and the threat of 16. Nxd6 followed by 17. f5.

I am not sure I understand Black's subsequent check on c5 followed by retreating the bishop to f8. White proceeds to carry out his own mini-plan of exchanging the remaining bishops, which brings the White queen closer to the Black king and leaves Black with awkwardly placed pieces and the prospect of having to defend against a pawn storm on the queenside and the doubling of White rooks on the semi-open f-file. I really like how strong the knight is on f5. Obviously, 22 ...Qxa2 23. Ne7, Rh8 24. Rxf7 is hugely in White's favor. Janowski tries to block the f-file, but weakens squares in the process. It's interesting to me how Capablanca does not fear exhcanges on f5, even of the queens, because he sees that White's advantage continues into the endgame, especially since this is his forte. Both 27. g4 (threatening 28 g5) and 28. b4! (preventing Black from playing 28...c5) show Capablanca's great understanding of the ending. Likewise, 30. a4! prevents Black from trying to gain some space and an open file on the queenside by 30...a5.

By move 33, White's king is centrally located, the queenside is closed, Black's rooks have no real aggressive possibilities, and White is able to pursue an advance on the kingside more or less undeterred. This game makes a great impression on me as far as the prevention of opponent's counterplay and the subtleties of endgame play are concerned. After the g5 advance is completed, Black seeks counterplay on the h-file. IM Dembo pointed out to me how White's 37. Rg3 is much superior to the "automatic" 37. Rf3. Why not use the less active rook to defend the pawn while retaining full scope of the rook on the open f-file? By move 40, White is on the way to creating an isolated pawn for Black on the kingside and is ready for the central pawn advance that he has delayed until the right time. 42...Kb7 is more or less forced because allowing White to infiltrate on the queenside with 42 ...Kd7 43. Ra8 is suicide. This being said, the Black king plays no real part in the game after this, while White's monarch helps to usher his central pawn majority forward.

White's 43. e5 threatens 44. Rf6 and the Black kingside pawns are in trouble. 44. Ke4 shows Capablancas's patience and attention to detail: 44. Rf6? Rxf6 45. gxf6 Rf7 is less convincing than the game continuation. By move 46, White's plan to weaken the pawns on the kingside results in the win of a pawn, and from this point on the win is easy. Note again how Capablanca uses his rooks more effectively by playing 47. Rgxg5 rather than the alternative 47. Rfxg5, Rh7 and White cannot put an immediate stop to Black's counterplay on the h-file as he does in the game. Janowski must have felt that he'd had the life squeezed out of him during this game.

I hope this game and the comments are of some help to readers seeking to learn, as I am, how to play chess more "deeply." This was a smooth and brilliant positional performance!

settling in and down

2011-11-15T13:52:00.001-08:00

I've been in my new home now for two weeks and finally have a little time to blog. It was only yesterday that I restored functionality to my home PC - the part that distributes power to everything wore out and needed to be replaced. Fortunately, I work at a technical college and we have a "student helpdesk" where staff and students can bring their troubled computers for diagnoses and help from information systems students performing under the watchful eyes of faculty. They discovered the trouble, sent me to get the proper part, and installed it for me at no charge. I set the unit up last night and tested it to make sure all the programs and databases I had on it before the move are functional. Now all I need is a printer stand and to hook up that piece of vital equipment.

While I was occupied with personal life changes, I managed to miss the Wisconsin Veteran's Open in Oshkosh. I never even thought about it until the Sunday of the event. I would not have likely been in any shape to play chess well that weekend anyway, but I might have played just to get the "rust" off. So the next tournament will be the Northeastern Wisconsin Open in Neenah in January. I'll be able to study and train for that, now that I can resume lessons with Yelena and play some chess online. Now that my chess coach has returned home after a good result at the European Team Championship (+2=7 on board one for the team from Greece), we are going to look at another GM of note, Boris Spassky. I have a couple of books of his games, notably the collection edited by Barden that was published before Fischer-Spassky I. Yelena suggested an examination of Spassky's playing style, especially since he favored the Closed Sicilian with White for a time.

I have a lot of catching up to do with chess. Prior to the move, I was working with Glenn Flear's new book "Tactimania!" which is a very good collection of tactical puzzles from his own games and those of his wife. I've looked at a few puzzles in the last two weeks, but nothing that resembles "study." What I like about the book is that the positions are new - not some of the oft-used positions that show up in nearly every other tactics book. They are rated as far as difficulty is concerned and there are a bunch of them right at the beginning to whet the reader's appetite for more instruction and additional challenges.

a month has passed...

2011-10-21T16:29:00.000-07:00

I apologize, dear readers, for the fact that a month has gone by since my last posting here. I admit that I hadn't realized how much time had passed; I've been quite occupied with the ending of a 21 year marriage during this time. Beginning November 1, I will be living in a different city (technically, a village) in a separate residence, and I expect that my ability to devote sufficient time to this weblog will have returned. I have had very little time to look at chess, save for following Yelena's successful participation in the European Club Championships a few weeks ago. A silver medal on board two is a wonderful accomplishment, especially since earning it involved earning a win and a draw against the other two medalists.

I've played a few online games, with mixed results, probably due to my mixed up feelings about my personal life, and I have studied one issue of Bob Long's little opening newsletter, "SCORE." I've missed playing chess, but there simply has not been time and energy to do so. I've also been remiss in visiting other chess-related weblogs, something for which I apologize here. Some of the visitors here have excellent chess chronicles themselves, and I've missed reading them. I am taking with me all of my chess materiel when I move, and I will also have my PC on which are stored numerous databases, game fragments, and exercises from my lessons with Yelena. We have our first lesson in quite awhile scheduled for Monday.

Once I have a bit more time, I plan to present the second game of Capablanca in the series begun last month. I hope to have this happen before the actual move. Best wishes to all, and good skill over the board!

Capablanca

2011-09-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

Blog reader "es_trick" asked me to cite a few games of Capablanca that would illustrate my assertion that he was a master of flexibility and adaptation at the chess board. I will present one today and try to comment a little on it. This first game of this "series" shows Capablanca's ability to positionally punish weak moves by as great a player as Emanuel Lasker by first attacking the isolated d-pawn. The unexpected 20...bxc6 makes it impossible for White to get rid of the weakness by advancing the pawn. Capablanca then allows a capture on d5 which shields White's isolated pawn on d4 but gives Black other avenues for infiltration and a great square for his knight on f5. The maneuver h7-h5-h4 maintains the knight's post and fixes White's g- and h-pawns. Capablanca switches to the queen-side after Lasker plays 30. Qb1, which threatens to begin the advance of White's pawn majority. 30...Qb4 not only prevents the pawns from advancing, but it also ties down the White Rook and Knight to the defense of the d4-pawn. This is followed by a "minority attack" of sorts on the queen-side that leaves White with two isolated pawns and also exchanges the queens. The endgame that results is lost for White. Lasker's attempt at counterplay on the king-side ends up only weakening his position further. I think it is illustrative of how positionally lost White is when Black wins the b-pawn even with the White king available to help with the defense. This is a wonderfully smooth game.

2011-09-15T11:41:00.000-07:00

My current ongoing assignment from Yelena is to play through the games of Cuban World Champion Jose R. Capablanca. I've been using the old standby, "The Immortal Games of Capablanca," by Fred Reinfeld, a hardcover copy of which I've had for several years now. I'm about 75% of the way through the book, and have noticed one key, crucial thing that Capablanca did well and at which I am truly poor: maintaining flexibility while identifying and carrying out the best possible plan in a given position.

Like many club players, my "plans" are very short term and often deteriorate into a move-by-move reaction to the opponent's play. Because of my insufficient knowledge of chess, even good plans tend to be superficial, weak, and readily discarded in the face of opponent's threats. The more I play through Capablanca's games, the more impressed I am by the sophistication of his plans and by his ability to change plans as the position changed. In a few games, Capablanca even backs out of a bad plan and finds another, admitting previous mistakes. I simply cannot make these kinds of adjustments and adaptations.

I have asked Yelena to prepare for me a number of her games that would illustrate her own planning processes, adaptations to changes in positions, and also some examples of her flexibility as a chess player. My plan is to have her go through these games with me very carefully, sharing the thoughts and ideas behind her plans and how she evaluated the needs of the positions, so I can hopefully better understand this process and try to try to implement it in my own games.

playing chess on the web

2011-09-07T11:59:00.001-07:00

Since my available time for study has become next to non-existent, my chess work has been primarily confined to the occasional online game. While I realize that much of the value of a playing chess as a way of learning diminishes when playing on the web, at least I have an opponent. I've concentrated on games via Playchess.com, since I am now convinced that the quality of opposition is higher than at other sites. There has been a slow and gradual increase in my rating there, now at 1549, which is near my peak rating of a few weeks ago. I need to get past some anxiety I have about playing others who are rated a fair amount higher than I am. I conquered that at Chesscube.com, so it can be done at Playchess, too.

I couple of nights ago I played one of the more intense games I've played online in a while. I was Black and got an inferior position out of a Morra Gambit Sicilian. I ended up having to sacrifice my queen for rook and knight just to stay in the game. We were playing at 15 minutes + 15 seconds per move, so the game lasted quite a while. I used up a lot of time defending myself as White intensified the pressure, but survived and got my king out of trouble. I've mentioned before how Yelena has urged me to fight, always to fight, and to make threats whenever possible. This was my strategy as the game progressed. I know that White missed a few clear wins (having seen them myself) and I was able to intimidate him into some inaccuracies, which became errors. My opponent overlooked a tactical threat that allowed me to win a piece for two pawns, so the "fight" became Queen and 4 pawns against Rook, Knight, Bishop, and three pawns.

I think that the maxim of "whenever possible, create a threat" was invaluable during this game. Even though my opponent had the all-powerful queen, he never really used its power to double attack. except to munch a couple of pawns during the middle game. I found various threats: using pins, possible discovered attacks on the Queen, and even a back rank mate to keep him off stride. At the end, I advanced my knight to the d4 square threatening one of his two queenside passed pawns. He defended the pawns, but overlooked the main threat: a forking check on f3. Even though I had less than 2 minutes left and he had almost 5, he resigned immediately - probably out of disgust with himself more than anything. Thus, my efforts garnered me a win when I would have been happy to eake out a draw.

I think about how in the past I would have "rolled over' and passively lost this kind of game. My mentality of "What's the use? I'm screwed now" would have undermined any reasonable attempts to hold the position. Granted, my opponent could have easily won the game, but he didn't - in part, I believe, because I made it difficult for him and maybe frustrated him. This attitudinal change is a huge tribute to good coaching and my willingess to try something different and new.

learning positions

2011-09-03T11:43:00.000-07:00

During the time I have been working with IM Yelena Dembo, I have been shown and told to save 240 different chess positions and games. These are all in one database in my Chessbase 11, and I've spent quite a lot of time this afternoon trying to sort out these positions and games by category and/or theme. What I have found to be interesting so far is that 117 of the 240 positions are essential endgame ideas of one form or another. Yes, nearly half of our saved lessons are about the endgame! This is something to ponder for those players who think that studying the openings is the only way to go.

Thus, I have created a new database of important endgame information for me to review and to study whenever I want. There are, of course, a number of very good endgame learning resources out there (Mueller's DVD series for Chessbase, Nunn's "Chess Endings," etc.) but I've never gotten deeply into them. These 117 positions that I've already learned from and which are familiar to me will likely be reviewed again and again. This collection of saved learning material to which I refer is an example of the value derived from lessons from Yelena, and serves as a bonus perk for me.

reviews

2011-08-28T08:08:00.001-07:00

During the period of time that those not familiar with teaching call "summer vacation" I pledged to read two books (Frank Brady's "Endgame" and Paul Hoffman's "King's Gambit") and to obtain and to watch the film "Joueuse" ("Queen to Play"). I have already asserted my thoughts and reactions to "Endgame, so I will devote this entry to "King's Gambit" and "Queen to Play." Both of these chess-related media impressed me very favorably.

"King's Gambit" is an interesting book to read if for no other reason than for Hoffman's idea of blending autobiographical, personal, and historical (primarily chess history) material throughout the book. The reader is invited to get to know Hoffman's own history, including his painful relationship with an enigmatic father and also the author's efforts at chess. Coverage is provided of a number of important chess events including fascinating glimpses into the "behind the scenes" world of international chess. Hoffman also shares his friendships with some world class players (Nigel Short and Pascal Charbonneau.

Despite the varied nature of subject matter, Hoffman does a great job of transitioning from one to another. I found the movements between topics to be natural and easy to follow. There are so many interesting tidbits and anecdotes blended within the book that to try to recount them here would be silly. Suffice to say that the reader will be intrigued by descriptions of such people and things as a Moscow underground drug club, the personal lives of players like Irina Krush, and current FIDE President Ilyumzhinov's rather unique personality. Because the author understands chess, is an accomplished writer, and has been "embedded" in chess for decades, this is a book that conveys the world of chess in a way that a reader with no understanding of the game will enjoy.

"Queen to Play" is a very recently released film starring American actor Kevin Kline (in his first all French-speaking role) and French actress Sandrine Bonnaire. Chess plays a very large and important role throughout the film, but lest the reader think it is a chess movie, I'm not so sure I would call it that. It seems to me to be more of a story of breaking out of one's self-imposed life trap and of finding passion in an activity that helps usher in significant changes. Bonnaire plays "Helene," a woman whose life as a chambermaid, dissatisfied wife, and frustrated mother is forever altered by her discovery of chess. Not only does the game itself fascinate her, but she shows talent for it as well. Helene's passion for chess leads her to ask for instruction from one of her clients, a reclusive doctor (Kline). While there are some modestly suggestive elements in the relationship, it seems clear that what Helene wants and needs is chess understanding and confidence in herself.

I found the film to be accurate in a chess sense, but also to accurately reflect a process by which some people break out of lackluster lives by finding something inspirational and then bursting bonds of their own making to finally embrace life and living. "Queen to Play" is both a drama and a comedy, and the viewer is never quite sure when elements of either will emerge. Bonnaire is an excellent actress and plays her role to perfection - even her sly smile when she defeats over the board the organizer of the tournament (he had previously discouraged her from playing) is understated enough to make her point without losing our respect for her. Kline does a competent job as the chess-playing physician, but it is the character of Helene whom we grow closest to and most fond of. I had a hard time getting this DVD, and paid a high price for it, but this is a film that I plan to watch again, more than once.

lessons

2011-08-23T15:24:00.000-07:00

What have I been doing lately? Allowing myself to get overwhelmed by work and personal stresses, that's what. As an amateur chess player, I am prone to all of the distractions and responsibilities of anyone else, without the ability to justify chess playing and studying because it is my "job." All of us have excuses for our lack of chess training, and I guess I am as good as anyone at coming up with them. I have been playing less and less on the Internet, and, interestingly, have performed better at Playchess.com than at Chesscube.com, where my rating has steadily decreased. And I only today resumed my informal study of Capablanca's games.

What has saved me, I think, from descending into chess apathy has been regular lessons with Yelena. I try to work with her once a week, regularly, to explore new chess ideas and to keep in contact with the world of this Royal Game. Lessons have become a normal part of my weekly routine, and quite honestly help to keep my spirits up. Yelena is playing in a Serbian Chess League from August 26th to September 7th, so our next lesson isn't until the 9th of September. I plan to use free time to view one of GM Ashley's recent DVDs and to continue playing through the games of Capablanca. As "primitive" as the chess may have been in the 1920's, it is still very edifying and interesting.

themes

2011-08-15T02:27:00.000-07:00

During the past several lessons I have had with Yelena, I have been introduced to a number of different positional and tactical "themes" in hopes of increasing my ability to "see" opportunities that may present themselves in practical play. Because of a variety of personal and professional challenges, I have not been able to dedicate nearly enough time to chess study these past few months, and these lessons have kept me at the very least engaged in the game. I've also asked for some time to review a few different openings. Yelena suggests that there simply is no substitute for knowledge of opening theory; at least (in my case) for the first 8 moves or so. "Knowing theory" does not mean mere memorization of moves. It is a close familiarity with the ideas of each opening, along with a cultivated ability to play correctly the main variations of the openings in one's repertoire.

I invite readers to post comments about their preferred ways of studying openings. I find myself at a loss when it comes to the process of acquiring this knowledge.

processing

2011-07-31T11:51:00.000-07:00

This past Tuesday, Yelena and I examined my round 1 and 2 games from the Green Bay Open. The majority of the time, of course, was focused on my loss with the Black pieces in the Rossolimo Variation of the Sicilian (1. e4, c5 2. Nf3, Nc6 3. Bb5 to a young man who ended up with 4.5/5 in the tournament. I clearly and rather seriously misplayed the opening, not being familiar enough with the strategic themes of this variation. It was interesting, however, how our analysis pointed out how weakly my opponent played at times. From my side of the board during the game it looked like he saw "everything" when in fact both of us overlooked ways to maximize our chances. Let's have a look at the position at which point I had my last chance to save the game:

Black sacrificed a bishop on g4 in an attempt to create some counterplay rather than be slowly squeezed in a pawn down endgame. It is Black to move and I had two candidate moves selected: 31 ...Qh4 and 31 ...Qf3+ The time control was at move 40, and I had mere minutes to make the decision. I chose the wrong move. I offer this as an exercise for readers. Which of the two is the better move, and which one loses quickly?

gbo 35

2011-07-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

Note to Self: Do not, under any, circumstances, dine on leftover food during a weekend Swiss chess tournament. Unfortunately, this was the most important piece of learning gained from this weekend's Green Bay Open. Here are some details about my involvement in the event: I was able to play three rated games, with opponents rated 410 (?!), 1898 (placed 2nd overall), and 1101(?!). With my rating of 1561, I gained two whole USCF rating points by beating the two weaker players and losing to the much stronger player. With my 1/2 point bye in round 3, I had 1 1/2 points after the first day. I was so sick by the time I got up on Sunday, I don't even remember how I got to Green Bay, but I won my round four game to reach 2 1/2. I simply couldn't wait around feeling terrible for 3 hours until the last round, and I went home.

This is about as disappointed as I have ever felt about a chess tournament. Not only was I in line for a class prize had I won or drawn my last game, but I'd played 3 games without serious anxiety and without any kind of anxiolytic medication. I figured that the final round game would be against someone closer to my rating, too. It's not real fun to win two relatively easy games and to lose a hard-fought game in which I was simply outclassed without having some kind of near-equal competition. I really wanted to play all four games and to show myself that I am overcoming the anxiety problem.

As always, the tournament was well-directed and well-run, and I enjoyed it, but I will from now on always make fresh food to eat.

icc

2011-07-19T13:37:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend, I made a decision to revisit an old acquaintance, the Internet Chess Club. Depending on whom you ask, ICC is the "premiere" online chess server site. I have been a member there in the past, primarily to get online chess lessons, but allowed my subscription there to lapse a while ago. There were a number of reasons for that decision: 1) I had just gotten a year's membership at Playchess.com and really didn't see myself needing two such sites, 2) ICC is a rather pricey site, with much of the content not being interesting to me, 3) I was not comfortable with the graphics of the chessboard and pieces - something about the color combinations and figures of the pieces prevents me from seeing the position as clearly as, say, at Chesscube.com, 4) The communication process there, with its "finger-" this, that and the other thing seemed stupid and laborious to me, 5) When I logged in, three different pop-up windows opened almost simultaneously, and it got annoying to keep minimizing the on-going "tomato" announcement screen and the list of events available.

So on Monday I went to the ICC site in order to see if I could get a "free trial" by using a different e-mail address, in order to see what had possibly changed. I created a new user name and password, downloaded the "Dasher" software, and then tried to login at the site. I instantly got a message that my subscription had expired (as of that very date) and that I would need to pay to renew it. Immediately, I logged out, uninstalled the Dasher, and basically said "adios" to that idea. The next day I got a note from ICC asking me why I hadn't yet logged in to try the site. I told them why, probably rather tersely, and received a seven day "extension" to my subscription.

This morning I logged in to avail myself of the trial. Lo and behold! The same annoyances that caused me to leave ICC in the first place are still there, with a price increase to boot. I played one game and decided that I will stick with the servers I use now. I realize that some readers out there probably like and enjoy ICC. Unfortunately, it does not meet my needs and expectations.

a rating is just a number...

2011-07-06T05:32:00.000-07:00

On a number of occasions in the past there have been brief discussions here about the (meager) importance of ratings and how what really matters is one's playing strength. After all, no rating system can gauge with 100% accuracy how a player will play on any given day against another player. There are simply too many variables involved in any chess contest, ranging from the respective health of the players to the opening used to the type of board and pieces and so on. It's safe to say, however, that a numerical rating can provide a reasonable comparison of playing strength between two players coupled with a statistical likelihood of the result of a game they play.

Right now, I possess five ratings, two for over-the-board play and three for online play. My current United States Chess Federation rating is 1561 and my USCF "Quick Play" is 1578. These are over-the-board ratings. At Playchess.com, my "Blitz" rating is 1467, and my "Slow" rating is 1642. What is quite remarkable to me lies with the fifth and final rating I have, the one at Chesscube.com. By winning the game I have posted below, I pushed my rating there to the ridiculous high of 1908. According to the Chesscube.com site, I have played 218 games there since I began, with 98 games playing White and 120 playing the Black pieces.

What I can say with certainty is that reaching 1900+ is a psychological boost, regardless of the disparity between these numerical measures.

catching up a little bit...

2011-07-01T12:06:00.000-07:00

I've sent in my entry for this year's Green Bay Open, scheduled for July 23rd and 24th. Since it is one of the three available "local" tournaments each year, I try very hard to attend and to play well. Luke Ludwig of Green Bay is the organizer and to call him "old school" is to compliment him on running chess tournaments with long time controls, silent tournament rooms, and forfeits of games for ringing cell phones. Of all the local chess organizers, Luke most reminds me of the attitude towards chess events that was pervasive back in the 1970's: optimum conditions for concentration, rules enforcement, and taking chess seriously. As always, I am taking a half point "bye" in round 3, as I can't see myself playing a third tournament game that begins after 7:00 at night.

From the "Ooops File" we have the following bit of chess blindness demonstrated by yours truly:

I am playing Black and was feeling a little uncomfortable about the activity of the White pieces and my somewhat cramped position. So a brilliant thought came to me: "Make an active move!" Unfortunately, after my execution of 14 ...Rd2, my opponent was able to remind me that all pieces except for pawns move backwards by playing 15. Bxd2.

And, on a more positive note for me, we have the following case of "When and When Not to Trade Pieces." My opponent, playing with the Black pieces, has thoroughly outplayed me and is two pawns up in a rook endgame. The only thing White has in his favor is the passed f-pawn, which seems inadequate in the face of Black's 4 on 1 queenside majority. Black's king is aggressively posted, his rook has freedom to move and threaten while White's is for the most part defensive.

I am sure that when he played 39 ...Rd3?? my opponent thought he was trading into a won king and pawn ending. Well, it is a "won" ending, but not for Black. After 40. Rxd3, Kxd3 41. f5, Black no doubt realized that his king was one move too "aggressive" and that the White pawn will promote.

now this is what it is all about...

2011-06-24T13:46:00.000-07:00

Here's a game I played just a few minutes ago. There is no way in Heaven or hell that I could have played such a game even a few months ago... My Greek opponent's Chesscube.com rating was 1914. I was rated 1862, so it was a pretty even match, rating-wise.

This is the kind of chess I always believed I could play. Working with IM Yelena Dembo has made it possible. From the final position, the game concluded 31...Qxh5 32. gxf8+ Kxf8 33. Rxh5 and White won in a couple more moves.

(learning) chess requires courage

2011-06-24T08:42:00.000-07:00

Below is a position from one of my chess lessons (Radev, N.-Pribyl, J. Tbilisi 1971). IM Dembo is providing me with a plethora of unevenly material balanced positions to help me better understand the power of each piece and how different pieces may be creatively used to win positions that might seem drawish or, at least, very difficult.

She presented me with this position during a lesson and I spent about twenty seconds trying to figure out a way to trap Black's bishop of making it leave the a1-h8 diagonal so the White king could enter Black's pawn position. Then I got an idea...could White play 1. g4, followed by f5 or h5 (depending on which pawn captures the g4-pawn) in order to create a passed pawn?

Without any further calculation, I dismissed my intuitive idea, not wanting to look stupid in front of my mentor. It turns out that the correct move for White IS 52. g4!! (the game finished 52...hxg4 53. h5! Kg7 54. hxg6 Kxg6 55. Rd5 Bc1 56. Rxf5 Bxf4 57. Rxf4 Kg5 58. Ke5 g3 59. Ke4 g2 60. Rf8 Kg4 61. Rg8 Black Resigns)

On two different fronts, I showed a lack of courage. First of all, I chickened out of even mentioning the (correct) idea until after the solution had been presented, not wanting to look silly. Secondly, I didn't have the courage to trust my own intuitive chess sense and calculate the idea out further without dismissing it out of hand. This was a powerful lesson within a lesson!

must have been an off day...

2011-06-19T14:23:00.000-07:00

Following is a game I just played at Chesscube.com. For those readers who believe that stronger players make fewer blunders, take some solace in the fact that this is definitely not so. My unfortunate opponent must have been having a very bad day...

I don't think that one can call this anything but "ugly." I felt bad, in a way, to take advantage of a player who was clearly out of form. But at least the 12 rating points I gained brought me to my highest rating at this site.

over the board game

2011-06-12T17:38:00.000-07:00

On Thursday afternoon my friend Jim and I met at a coffee shop to play a clock game of chess. Those employed at this little business were kind enough to allow us to play and to just enjoy a beverage during the game. There were not many people at the shop - I have been there when it is totally packed and chess is the last thing one can do. Anyway, we agreed on Game/45 minutes, mainly due to my busy schedule. I think Jim would have preferred an even longer time limit, but he graciously agreed.

What is the most gratifying aspect of the game is the lack of acute anxiety. I've been able to play online chess reasonably successfully - achieving, I think, a level of familiarity and normalcy at the two sites I visit - and this was the first occasion for me to play a face-to-face over the board game since the Hales Corners tournament. Obviously, this was a friendly game and Jim is a friend, so the situation itself was rather artificial and thus less inclined to prompt anxiety.

We had a nice friendly game and then shared a brief post mortem about the game. Jim's native passion to learn was evident, and he asked me a number of questions about the opening I used and how to play against it. I am reasonably sure he will share the game with his own trainer for the purpose of analysis and improvement. I played okay, despite blundering a pawn at one point. However, the relative comfort I felt during the game was my real reward.

sloppy play is discouraging

2011-06-08T14:03:00.000-07:00

During the last ten days or so, I have played some online chess daily, sometimes up to three games at game/15 minutes. I can't say that I had any special reason for this increase in activity - I just wanted to play more. Interestingly, I began my little chess binge playing pretty well and achieving some good victories over higher rated players. I saw a great many things at the board and avoided some possible traps and errors I might otherwise have made. I achieved a rating of 1836 at Chesscube.com and had similarly positive results at Playchess.com. My blitz rating there climbed over 1400 and my "slow" rating got as high as 1707.

In the past few days, I have made more outright blunders than I can remember in a similar span of time. One was moving the "wrong rook" to a specific square. Why was it the wrong rook? Well, because the other one was attacked by a bishop and I could easily have moved the threatened piece to the open file. In another game I noted the possibility of my opponent being able to play a double check, which I thought would be harmless. Well, if you call dropping your queen "harmless," then it was indeed. I am not sure what happened, but I did decide to take a little break and focus on the study of Capablanca's games, my current "assignment" from Yelena. Better to focus on some positional themes than to squander time the way I have been.

beware the scotch game

2011-06-03T11:22:00.001-07:00

Most readers know that my chess trainer is IM Yelena Dembo and that she has written a new book, along with Richard Palliser, on the Scotch Game. During my early lessons with her, this opening was recommended to me as a way of getting out of my 1. d4 passivity. Old school players tend to think that the Scotch is simplistic and perhaps not very exciting, but I have picked up several wins and a good number of rating points using it online. The following two miniatures illustrate the potential lethality of this apparently simple opening:

Be careful when you have Black against the Scotch - it's not just a hangover that threatens you... :)

"endgame"

2011-06-01T18:19:00.000-07:00

Now that the spring semester has ended, I've managed in a few days to finish my copy of Frank Brady's "Endgame," the chronicle of the life of Robert James Fischer. Brady wrote a biography of Bobby Fischer back in 1965, a tome called "Profile of a Prodigy," which he revised in 1973 to include the games of Fischer's 1972 World Chess Championship victory over the Soviet Union's Boris Spassky. If there is someone who has been closer to the maelstrom called Fischer's life than Dr. Frank Brady, it is only Regina Fischer, Bobby's mother. Brady was involved with and in contact with Fischer's chess career from the beginning.

What is the most remarkable thing about this book, among numerous high points, is the sheer amount of information that Brady has gathered to fill in many of the gaps about Fischer's life. Now that the former World Champion has passed on and the Soviet Union is no more, heretofore unavailable information has come to light, and Dr. Brady has painstakingly gathered, corroborated, and compiled it in this wonderful book. I can understand why some would not wish to read "Endgame" because of Fischer's anti-Semitic and anti-American vitriol, but they would be missing out on a fascinating story.

What I enjoyed most about "Endgame" is the amalgamation of new facts with the well-known aspects of Fischer's biography. A substantial portion of these data are "up close and personal" anecdotes and details that help the reader understand just how complex and misunderstood Bobby Fischer was, and still is, in many circles. Personally, I found the portions of the book that cover the post 1972 years to be the most interesting, and the trials and tribulations through which Fischer went following his 1992 rematch with Spassky being especially noteworthy. The chapter entitled "Living and Dying in Iceland" is quite poignant and surprising in a number of ways. Brady does not forget, at any point in this book, that Bobby Fischer was a human being.

I've not gotten very specific in this brief review, because I want readers to get the book and be surprised, uplifted, saddened, and edified as I was by it.

for your analyzing pleasure...

2011-05-26T14:00:00.000-07:00

This position is from one of my very recent 15 minute games at Chesscube.com. It is White to move. How do you evaluate the position? White ended up losing. Could he have done better?

world championship

2011-05-16T04:43:00.001-07:00

While trying to keep my head above water work-wise, I have managed to follow the matches between candidates for the World Chess Championship. The semi-finals are still going on, with both matches tied at 2-2 (Kamsky-Gelfand and Grischuk-Kramnik). This portion of the event has been rather disappointing for spectators, since all 8 games have been drawn. Tie break games are scheduled today, and I am understanding that these tiebreak games are rapid games after the more classical time controls of the first four match games. Chessbase.com has had some good coverage of the event, with some rather negative remarks directed towards Kramnik and Grischuk, who drew two games of the four in less than 20 moves.

My own study of chess has been temporarily derailed by demands of work. I've squeezed in a few games online, with mixed results, but serious study of things like endgames and Yelena's little blue book on positional chess has been rare indeed. I have good intentions, but having double the usual number of students in most classes has proven to be a daunting challenge. There is a lesson scheduled for this coming Friday, and it will be good to be able to look at chess once the semester is over. I am a tired guy right now, but I miss playing.

belated lesson report

2011-04-28T15:25:00.000-07:00

I had a lesson with Yelena this past Monday morning, and am only now blogging about it, which should tell any reader how busy my work life is right now. With three weeks to go in the semester after tomorrow, both the students and faculty are scrambling to get things completed. Thursday often becomes my "end of the week" day, so I can find time to do things like share with the loyal (and probably frustrated) followers of this blog. Summer is not that far away, and I hope to resume a more regular blogging schedule once the spring term is over.

For the first part of the lesson, we reviewed some of the basic ideas of the King's Indian Defense. I totally forgot Black's ideas against the Samisch variation when I encountered it at the last tournament and misplayed the game rather badly. Yelena stressed that it is crucial to closely observe White's moves and to know the theory she has provided me because even an apparently innocuous move change or transposition can radically alter what Black needs to do. I forgot that Black needs to counter on the queenside against 5. f3. I think part of this was anxiety, but a lot of it is simply not knowing theory very well.

The majority of the lesson was spent examining games in which one player offers a positional pawn sacrifice, with the idea of learning about different forms of compensation. It looks to me like piece activity is the key ingredient in these situations, although I am very slow to "get" the ideas. Sometimes I think I disappoint my very patient chess coach with my lack of understanding and poor board vision. It seems like I am very slow in identifying what to do in a given position, and I am very often far too passive. Chess is an opportunistic game, and I often squander good opportunities.

when a good result really isn't...

2011-04-20T07:40:00.000-07:00

The very good news related to playing in this past weekend's Hales Corners "Challenge" is that I played. Dropping down to the Reserve Section, attending the event with a chessplayer friend, and trying to have fun allowed me to avoid the kind of panic attacks that I've had recently prior to chess tournaments. Even though I didn't play the last round because of a pounding sinus headache, I still got a chance to get back into the tournament atmosphere and to play some over-the-board games.

Due to personal and professional stressors, I have not been able to do much more with the three games I played than to enter them in Chessbase. But even as I did so, it became clear to me that I hadn't been been focused at all on what I was doing, as has happened in the past. I found myself asking, "why did I play that move?" frequently as I entered the games, and noted all kinds of poor moves along the way. Yes, I scored two wins out of three games, but only because my opponents played worse than I did - not because, as I am hoping to someday achieve, I played well.

My round one game was a loss with Black in the King's Indian Defense. I totally forgot Black's ideas in the Samisch Variation and got tactically killed by a young man who ended up with 3/4. My second round win was against an 8 year old girl as White against the Russian Game. She didn't play the opening well and I obtained a huge mating attack. The final crosstable shows that she ended up also with 3/4. The third game could be aptly called a blunderfest. My opponent played a King's Indian Reversed and missed numerous good continuations while I maneuvered my knights all over the place, gaining very little. The game ended when he allowed a knight fork of his king and queen.

So, yes, I scored 2/3. And I was able to play in a tournament without paralysing anxiety. But there is something still very wrong about my over-the-board chess.

"hales corners"

2011-04-15T14:40:00.000-07:00

I have made myself a fairly last minute entry into the Hales Corners tournament tomorrow in Milwaukee. Jim M. and I will be leaving at about 7:00 in the morning. I decided to play in the Reserve Section (under 1600) while he is presently entered in the Open Section. Last time I looked, he is the lowest-rated player there, while I am third highest in the Reserve. What I really want to do is to play well, under no pressure, and to just enjoy the experience. I have been working with Yelena to learn more about what constitutes "compensation" for pawn sacrifices (losses, in many cases, at least in my games) and how to utilize it. Our lesson today involved four positions in which one side lost/sacrificed a pawn and went on to use superior piece activity to win a nice game. Very instructional.

yelena in france - wrap up

2011-04-05T05:20:00.000-07:00

The 12th European Individual Chess Championship finished up on April 2nd, with a four way tie for first place: Russia's Vladimir Potkin, Poland's Radoslaw Wojtaszek, Hungary's Judit Polgar, and the Ukraine's Alexander Moiseenko all finished on 8.5/11. When the tiebreaks were applied, Potkin was named the winner, with Wojtaszek second and Polgar third. According to Chessbase.com, this is the first time that a female player has ever stood on the podium at the end of this event. Quite an accomplishment for GM Polgar, who won four straight games before agreeing to a draw in the final round.

Yelena had more than a respectable tournament, finishing with 4 wins, two losses, and five draws for a final score of 6.5/11. This made her the second highest finishing woman in the event, and earned her 14 Elo points and a final placing of 105th - very nice considering she was the 183rd rated player going into the event. Below is her last round win with the Black pieces against a Grandmaster:

yelena in france

2011-03-28T00:14:00.000-07:00

My chess trainer, IM Yelena Dembo, is playing in the 12th European Individual Chess Championship, being held in Aux Les Bains, France. After a short draw with GM Maxim Malakov (2625) yesterday, Yelena's score is +3-1=2. She is paired today against another GM, Ivan Salgado-Lopez (2630), and will have the Black pieces.

On Saturday, Yelena won the following long and difficult game against a 2600+ Grandmaster. Aside from the practical benefit of practicing the use of ChessFlash, I selected to present this game for a number of chess edification reasons: 1) it shows Yelena's tactical control of the game; 2) the game presents the cunning and resourceful nature of a very strong Grandmaster; and, 3) it demonstrates how one must work diligently at all times during a game in order to gain a victory.

complete notes to game

2011-03-27T06:34:00.001-07:00

Thanks to reader "chesstiger," I am able to post all of the notes to the game we've been looking at.

I'll keep working on the aesthetics of this process. :)

notes to caturmus_tauf - bumpaguv

2011-03-25T11:31:00.000-07:00

I have been trying to use a number of applications to post this game along with all the notes and variations Yelena and I came up with, but to no avail. I am sorry I've been so long in posting something about the game. Here are some selected comments and ideas about the game:

6 ...g6 The set-up Black is a good one against White's development.
11. Na4?? This is an outright blunder that loses a piece. 11. Nb1, O-O is playable.
15. Bxd7+? It is illogical for White to exchange pieces when he is a piece down.
15 ...Qxd7 Black has a piece for two pawns and should be trying to exchange off pieces, using this threat to make inroads into White's position in order to win more material.
17 ...Nc6?! It is not a good idea to move this knight away from the king-side if Black is anticipating an attack by White in that sector of the board. 17 ...f5 immediately is better.
24 ... Nxe5?? Black panics and now ends up a pawn down. Either 24 ...Ne7 or 24 ...Nd8 is playable.
27. Qg2! Qh4? 28. Nd2! A good defensive plan by White that Black overlooked.
30 ...Rf7 Black should play the king back to h8 to see if White will take the perpetual check.
31 ...Bf4? Black erroneously believes that he has an attack.
33. Rf1? White simply blunders a pawn. 33. Re1 and he is still on top.
36 ...Qxe2?! Black is not better in the minor piece ending. Better to keep the queens on: 36 ...Qh3 37. Ne6+ Kh6 38. Nxg5 Kxg5 39. Qg2+ Qxg2+ 40. Kxg2 Kf4 41. Kf2 Ke4 42. Ke2 g5.
40 ...Kd5 40 ...d5 and Black has a small advantage.
46 ...Kd3? Black begins a mistaken plan. 46 ...g5 is better.
47 ...Bf4?? The losing move. 47 ...Kc2! 48. b6 axb6 49. cxb6 Kb3! is a draw.
48. a5! Black is lost, as the White pawns cannot be stopped.

game analysis

2011-03-17T04:43:00.001-07:00

On Saturday morning, Yelena and I will be examining the following game that I played this past weekend. I am posting it so that readers may if they wish have a look at it. Even as a loss, this may be one of the better online games I have played. I give a lot of credit to my opponent, who took advantage of my errors to score a full point in an endgame.

I'll post what I learn about this game at a later date.

chess lessons and understanding

2011-03-12T18:47:00.000-08:00

On Friday, I had a lesson with Yelena, almost two weeks after the last one. She is challenging me in a way, by preparing a number of positions from her games (often, blitz or 2 minute games) and then showing me them one at a time, for my initial evaluation of the position and what I think the best continuation is for the side to move. The different positions represent different positional themes and typical strategies in some of the openings she has recommended that I play.

We've done similar exercises in the past, usually to illustrate endgame concepts and various tactical themes. I may be deluding myself, but lately I feel more confident in my ability to find good plans. I have an enormously long road ahead of me as far as reasonable competence in this is concerned. A couple of the main difficulties I have during these exercises are proceeding more slowly than I need to in the given position, and overlooking more effective move orders in some of the variations I look at. A couple of times on Friday I became "stuck" in the process, and was told that this is because I was not familiar with the correct ideas in these positions.

All of this work is confirming how deep and difficult chess really is. It seems to me that, much like higher education, the more you learn the more you realize you don't know. I think I've related this idea about education before on this blog, but delving more deeply into these kinds of positions confirms it on a more profound level. This makes me appreciate the skills and chess understanding of Grandmasters even more. Whereas I might be lucky enough to find a really good idea or move in a position, these exceptional players create deep and complicated plans where the "discovered" plan or move has been set up all along.

this is crazy...

2011-02-26T15:01:00.000-08:00

Here's a position from a game I played today. The time control is seven minutes plus 10 seconds per move. I have been trying to hang on for dear life since move 20 (!) mainly because I had a large time advantage over my opponent. Black is clearly lost in this position, and all White needs to do is to play 45. Qe2. But he had only seconds left...

...and played instead 45. Bxh4?? and Black has mate in no more than 4 moves. The game ended 45 ...Bxf4+ 46. Bg3 (46. Qxf4 or 46. Qg3 each hold out for one more move) Qh5+! 47. Kg1 Qh1 mate. So, should I be praised for finding this resource? Criticized for playing on in such a bad position? Asked how on earth I got myself into this position in the first place?

okay....maybe she's right...

2011-02-24T04:38:00.000-08:00

Playing a bit more online chess in the past few months has helped me to better understand why IM Dembo reminds me now and again of the improvement she sees in these games. It is very often the case that a person to notice movement forward in most endeavors because the amelioration of skills is a gradual process. While I am in no way regarding myself as anything more than a club player getting better, my usual self-doubt and sense of inadequacy is eroding in the face of strong evidence that I am playing better. The truth is that at Playchess.com I have moved from a low rating of under 1300 to my current level of 1492, and it has been as high as 1526. At Chesscube.com, I was given an initial rating of 1500 and have just last night reached my highest point of 1762. Last night, I played the following game, which added to my sense of improvement:

Yes, I know that 11. g4 is a very poor move, and White blunders his Queen at the end, but even on the most self-depreciating day I have to acknowledge that Black played pretty well in taking advantage of the error. Would I have played this way a year ago? Hardly. Odds are I wouldn't have even played an opponent with this high of a rating. Now, to get the anxiety thing worked out so I can see how I fare in over-the-board tournaments.

two positions

2011-02-22T05:57:00.000-08:00

The two positions above come from two of my online games played this month. I had the Black pieces in each game. While the positions are not all that similar, there are a number of commonalities. In both, I have a bishop versus a knight and one pawn more on the kingside. The goal in each is to somehow convert the extra pawn advantage by maneuvers of the king and bishop.

The first game continued as follows:
38 ...Bc2 39. Ke2 g4 40. Ke3 Kg5 41. Kf2 Kh4 42. Kg2 Bd3 43. Kf2 Kh3 44. Nh1 Be4 45. Ng3 Kh4 46. Ne2 Kxh5 47. Kg3 Kg5 48. Nf4 Bf5 49. Ne2 h5 50. Nc1 h4+ 51. Kh2 g3+ 52. Kg1 Be4 53.b3 axb3 54. Nxb3 h3 55. a4 h2+ 56. Kf1 h1=Q+ 57. Ke2 Qf3+ 58. Kd2 Qd3+ 59. Kc1 Qc2# 0-1

When I came upon the position in the second game, I recalled the earlier game and tried to execute some kind of similar idea - try to create a semi-Zugszwang situation:
38 .. .Kg5 39. Nh4 c6 40. b3 cxd5 41. cxd5 Bd8 42. Nf5 Bc7 43. Nh4 Bb6 44. Nf3+ Kh6 45. Nh4 Bc5 46. Nf5+ Kg5 47. Nh4? Bf2+! 48. Kxf2 Kxh4 49. Kf3 Kg5 50. Kg3 h4+ 51. Kh3 Kf4 52. Kxh4 Kxe4 0-1

Obviously, the methods were different, but it was familiarity with this kind of position from the first game that gave me the ideas and confidence to win the second. Yelena tells me often that the more I see various chess positions and ideas, the more often I will be able to find a good plan - and, more quickly.

psychology

2011-02-18T03:11:00.000-08:00

Interestingly, Dr. Hall (the psychologist I have consulted) seemed more interested than amused by the atypical origin of my anxiety and panic attacks. I euphemistically called it "competition-related anxiety and panic" when asked by the receptionist what the nature of the problem is. Dr. Hall asked me a lot of questions about chess and my background and the specific nature of the symptoms. I had no sense of judgment or mocking from her - in fact, she seemed interested in the chess lessons via Skype and Playchess.com - and how I used chess as a way to put some sanity in my life while growing up. Much of the first session consisted of data gathering and "building a relationship," as she called it.

The most common way of dealing with panic disorder (aside from minor tranquilizers, in which I have no interest) is a process called "systematic desensitization," during which the client is asked to expose himself to experiences that at first are barely similar to the circumstances that trigger the anxiety. As the client becomes able to manage any resulting distress, another, more similar experience is identified, to which the client is exposed. This process is augmented by the development of various relaxation and stress management skills used by the client to prevent or alleviate the symptoms. Eventually, the client progresses to a point where any anxiety from the triggering experience can be adequately managed.

Yes, I am familiar with this process, but I am not trained in it, so I can't just "do it myself." Dr. Hall said that she has received specialized training in a form of this process that emphasizes the building of the therapeutic relationship in addition to the more usual form of treatment. I'd not ever heard of this blend, although I am a strong believer in the value and power of the therapeutic relationship. She mentioned that Yelena and anyone willing to play some over-the-board chess with me will have roles to play in this, if they are willing. So, later this morning I will have a chess lesson at the usual time and then have a session with the psychologist at 9:30. The plan is for me to continue lessons as usual and to meet weekly with Dr. Hall with a view to becoming more acquainted before beginning the desensitization work.

And now, a 10 minute game I played this week:

White's 21. Rc1 is a blunder, allowing the Black knight to get to f4. I think 21. Qd2 is much better, keeping the knight out of f4 and thereby minimizing Black's advantage.

the "dog days" of winter

2011-02-08T10:18:00.000-08:00

The next five weeks or so are for me the most unpleasant time of the calendar year. I've had enough winter to satisfy my need for changes of season. I am deeply involved in this semester's workload, which is more time-consuming than difficult. The days are beginning to get longer but not nearly fast enough. And there's probably some degree of Seasonal Affective Disorder at work, too. Aside from Valentine's Day (the evening of which I am teaching), the next "fun" event is spring break, which comes along in later March. It isn't just for recovering addicted people to live by the motto "one day at a time;" it is how I handle February and early March.

Since my last posting, GM Hikaru Nakamura won the "Tata Steel" (formerly Corus) Group A championship by 1/2 point over World Champion Vishy Anand. I think it's safe to say that this is the first genuine "Super GM" chess tournament victory for him, and will hopefullybe just the first of his international triumphs. I've read in the past that GM Nakamura wants eventually to get into a more financially lucrative profession than chess, and I wonder what his thoughts on this are now. Another player from the United States, Gata Kamsky, is paired (once again) with Bulgarian Veselin Topalov in the quarterfinals of this cycle's Candidates Matches. This is, of course, the cycle from which GM Magnus Carlsen excluded himself.

My online games have been atrocious, what few of them I have played. Having pushed my Playchess.com rating as high as 1440, I proceeded to blunder away a couple of games against lower rated players. I did manage a draw by stalemate in a game where I was ahead a rook, knight, and one pawn. At Chesscube.com I had a very good game against a near 1800 rated player from Lithuania, but fell so far behind on the clock that I blundered away a rook in time pressure. I think that my concentration and playing energy are both at a low ebb right now.

panic disorder 1, greg 0

2011-01-29T13:57:00.000-08:00

On Monday I will be making a call to a psychologist for some assistance in overcoming the bane of my attempts to progress. As I sit here, waiting for the anxiolytic medication to wear off, I do not know whether to be more embarrassed or angry at myself. My much anticipated participation in this weekend's Northeastern Open was sidetracked by yet another significant panic attack. I should be enjoying round two right now, but instead I am sheepishly looking at this weblog entry and feeling the need to apologize to any number of people who encourage and support me.It is said in mental health circles that if you have never had a panic attack it is very hard to understand what someone having one feels like. So, if any readers out there are saying to themselves, "Oh, Good Lord, Greg, man up and deal with it," I understand what you are saying but it isn't enough to just "man up." Special thanks to Rob V. for messaging back and forth with me on Facebook. I did eventually try a game on Playchess.com, and I was able to win a long endgame.

all kinds of little things...

2011-01-24T08:01:00.000-08:00

Today is the second "free day" at the Tata Steel tournament in Wijk aan Zee. Vishy Anand and Hikaru Nakamura lead the "A" Group with 5.5/8, with several players right behind at 5 points. Nakamura lost with Black to Magnus Carlsen yesterday after a +4-0=3 start. He plays co-leader Anand tomorrow. Wesley So leads the "B" group, and a player with whom I am not familiar is on top so far in the "C" group. My Facebook acquaintance Rob is covering the event for Chessbase/Dutch Chess and he's had to have seen some very good chess. I hope all is well with him on this little adventure.

There seems to be a large disparity somewhere between the playing sites Chesscube and Playchess. My rating at Playchess hovers around the low 1400's, while at Chesscube I reached my top ever rating of 1760. It's clear to me that many stronger players frequent Playchess, but it also seems that the ratings there are low in comparison to those at the other site. A 1400 player at Chesscube seems much less strong than a player with a similar rating as Playchess. It may also be that I simply play better at Chesscube (I do prefer the graphics there) - I don't know.

A few days ago, someone rated about 1260 at Playchess essayed the following as Black: 1. e4, e5; 2. Nf3, d5, which I'd never seen before (I know that the Latvian Gambit is 2 ...f5). I replied with 3. exd5, which was met with 3 ...e4. Apparently, White has a number of good replies (4. Qe2 being one of them) but I played 4. Nd4 and was smashed in 28 moves. Well, I was busted by about move 16, but sacrificed my queen to avoid mate and then tried to put together some kind of attacking counterplay, which failed. This is the most unhappy game I've had on the Internet. That same evening, I played a G/15 against a 1700+ at Chesscube and mated my opponent on move 61, with 0.5 seconds left on my clock. I wonder if the program would have let me make the checkmating move had I run out of time. Back when I was a local tournament director, the rule was that a player loses on time if the flag falls, UNLESS his final move is mate. Anyone know what the current rule is?

lessons and a request

2011-01-21T08:13:00.001-08:00

Since my last posting, I've had two lessons with Yelena, both focused on better understanding of openings in my repertoire. Interestingly, both are from the White side of the board. I sent Yelena a few online games in which I was White with the two openings in question (losses, in particular), and we/she analyzed them and looked at various errors I made. It was very helpful to have explained the better moves and the themes and ideas behind them. Even in the wins I overlooked strong moves, both for myself and for my opponents. I learned some of the nuances in these positions, and had pointed out to me how those opponents rated higher than me essay unsound and even silly moves and ideas against me. Slowly, the myth of "invincibility" that I've cultivated about players rated higher than me is being replaced by the reality of their errors and human fallibility.

A new visitor to the weblog, "Johnnybike," mentioned the idea of posting my thoughts about playing G/15 games on the Internet. Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages to this type of training, so I will share a few thoughts and see what (if any) discussion ensues. The main idea behind playing at this time control is to practice and become more familiar with a new opening repertoire. I can play two or three games in one sitting (if time permits) and try out repertoire lines more quickly than I could if playing classical chess. I have never been a very good "speed chess" (what we used to call "blitz") player - I don't have quick sight of the board - so these 1, 2, 3, or 5 minute games I see make no sense to me. I started playing at G/10 minutes, which was okay, but moved to G/15 under the direction of several respected chess players. This gives me enough time to play reasonably intelligently, while at the same time honoring the limited time I have to practice.

When I log in at different chess websites, most of the players online want fast games. There are far fewer players wishing, for example, to play at G/30 or G/60, and those who do seem to be either very low-rated players or else very strong players against whom I would be "out of my league," as they say. When I am playing games online, I try to play opponents not much weaker than me, but also not those whose rating exceeds mine by over 150 points. G/15 seems to attract the kind of players for whom I am looking. The most obvious downside to this is the vast difference between this time control and those in typical over-the-board tournaments. With the Northeastern Open just around the corner, I am a little concerned that I may play too fast initially, lapsing into more of a "reactive" mode of thinking. Another evident problem with these online games is that the "face-to-face" tension of tournament chess is lacking. I am less anxious about playing online, now, but I've not been in a live tournament for some time.

Let's see where this line of thinking goes...

ideas behind the chess openings

2011-01-11T11:27:00.000-08:00

Many years ago, GM Reuben Fine of the United States wrote a book with this title. I acquired it while I was in high school (one of the "Tartan Paperback" books on chess that were popular at the time) and had no idea what to do with the book, other than to leaf through it occasionally, thereby reminding myself that I knew nothing about chess. Foolishly, I loaned it to a high school friend and never got it back (this seems to happen quite a lot). I thought of the book's title when I scheduled my next chess lesson with Yelena.

As a renewed 1. e4 player, I have had to look over a number of opening options that Black has with which to counter this initial move. Generally speaking, I've not had substantial difficulty in online games playing against various Black responses, with the exception of one particular reply available to Black. While not encountering this opening a great deal, I have struggled against it, saving only a draw out of three games and playing poorly in all of them. Of course, Yelena has helped me prepare a repertoire of sorts against this opening, but it has become clear to me that I do not understand White's ideas and plans against it.

This is a classic example of what Fine was trying to get at in his book, and what most chess players know "intellectually" but don't always believe: one needs to know more than just the opening moves, with memorization being the worst evil. It's not enough to be able to play 5-10 moves in a few variations. It is necessary to develop a thorough understanding of the ideas behind the moves, the types of positions one gets from the opening, and then, what to do during and then beyond the opening in terms of strategy, planning, and the opponent's ideas. A portion of my difficulty is that I have played this opening as Black and am reasonably familiar with that side of it. I do not, however, understand the White side, and thus next Monday's lesson will focus on this.

chess lesson

2011-01-07T12:07:00.000-08:00

I had a very enlightening chess lesson with Yelena on Tuesday, examining one of my recent losses to see what went wrong:

I have a copy of this game with some detailed analysis from the session, but it is not necessary to have such an aid in order to recognize that yours truly missed opportunity after opportunity to take this game from his opponent. Again, the theme of "overlooking possibilities" surfaced in this particular game. There must be some kind of "idee fixe" in my brain that denies the possibility of mistakes made by my opponents. Even a cursory "play-through" of this game should show any of the readers out there that my opponent made numerous errors in the opening and middle game and literally offered me a win. I guess the point is that I need to be attentive, not just to my own error and blunder potential, but also to that of my opponent. I know that chess is about mistakes and capitalizing on them, but I am not so sure that I "expect" errors and blunders, therefore not looking for them.

On the other hand, I did recently get a chance to play a queen-side attack with the Sicilian Defense:

Black's 10th move is way out of the ordinary (I found 31 games in the "Big Database 2010" that contained the position after Black's ...gxf6), since 10 ...Bxf6 is the usual move. I know that White did something drastically wrong in order to lose in just 15 more moves, so it's not like I can take credit for something amazing, but I think Black did play a decent attack.

first game of 2011

2011-01-02T09:36:00.000-08:00

I guess the author of "Greg's Chess Progress" can hope that this is a portent of things to come this year:

Many club-level players online are playing 2. Bc4 against the Sicilian. This prompted me to consult with IM Dembo about a sound set of ideas as a reply for Black. In this case it was better than "sound."

northeastern wisconsin open

2011-01-01T17:12:00.000-08:00

It was good to receive notice that the annual Northeastern Wisconsin Open is back after a one year hiatus. There simply is no other chess tournament that is easier for me to attend than this one. The hotel in which the event takes place is maybe three or four miles away from where I live, and I have had good results there in the past. The tournament room is spacious, carpeted, and well-stocked with water, score sheets, pencils, and announcements of other chess events. This is my next planned chess tournament, and it will be held on January 29-30, just four weeks away. The tournament is one of those ridiculous 5 rounds in two days events, so I'll be taking my customary half-point "bye" in the third round, which is scheduled to begin at 7:15 pm on Saturday. By "scheduled," I do not mean that it will begin at that time - normally the round begins later and I just will not do that to myself.

I got word today from fellow blogger and frequent visitor here, "chesstiger," that he will begin working with Yelena tomorrow. His comment and link to his weblog may be found in the "Comments" for my last posting. I hope that this coaching experience is just what he needs.

a holding pattern...

2010-12-28T13:59:00.000-08:00

The end of year holidays tend to provide ample activity for any "leisure" time one might have, so I have been tending to those things instead of focusing on chess as much as I would like. I have tried at least to play one game a day at game/15 minutes and have alternated between playing well and making horrific blunders, often during the same game. I think it is safe to say that my playing level at Chesscube.com has been clarified to something in the high 1600's. Once I reach 1700 or a bit above, I encounter players about 50-100 points higher than me and usually lose. It's not that I play badly, but I definitely make more mistakes than players at this level, and they are able to see and to take advantage of them. I am sure that someone over 2000 ELO would find all kinds of flaws in my opponents' play, but I am not strong enough to recognize my own errors and those of my opponents. Anyone at 1650 or below I can normally beat.

China's Hou Yifan's victory in the Woman's World Chess Championship tournament wasn't exactly a surprise to me, even though she was in what seemed to be the tougher bracket of the knock-out event. To be only 16 years of age and to be that good at any endeavor is impressive. I know that the Chinese players are strictly regimented in their lives and have access to the best coaching in the country, but the nerves this young woman has at such a young age are very impressive. In my own mind I thought she was the strongest player in the field, and she proved this in a grueling competition where every game could be the one that got a player eliminated. It looks like the woman's teams from Russia and China will be battling for chess supremacy in the near future.

I had a nice chess lesson this morning, focusing on some questions I had on opening repertoire suggestions. Suffice to say that the games played on the Internet do not feature a great deal of high-level opening theory, and I really can't get a lot better with main lines until I get stronger and play those who have more theoretical knowledge. Many games featuring 2. Bc4 of 2. c3 against the Sicilian and a good number of Philidor's Defense and offbeat ways of handling the Scotch Game. I've sent Yelena 3 recent losses with a view to examining my tendency towards poor defense and inadequate planning.

christmas eve's eve

2010-12-23T19:38:00.000-08:00

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has read and commented on my posts for this year on "Greg's Chess Progress." I know that at times I have no attended to this chronicle the way I should, and that often the material posted is less than interesting to some of the stronger players. I envisioned this to be a nearly daily exercise, but there simply is no way that I can do this. But thanks anyway for tolerating my chess meanderings. I wish you all the very happiest of holiday seasons, in whichever tradition you celebrate.

To those of you who play Black against the Scotch Game, please avoid the following blunder, which an opponent made against me tonight, adding his name to the list of victims of this variation:

Best wishes and God's blessings to you all.

a little gamelet

2010-12-17T15:55:00.000-08:00

Very few players hazard the variation my opponent played. Black needs to be very well-versed in it or things can go badly awry...

Afterward, I looked over the game to see what could have been done differently by both sides. Black most certainly could have improved on his play, and I missed a couple of better moves, too. I then subjected the game to some silicon analysis by Fritz and it appears I was in agreement with the program more often than not.

china 1.5, greece 0.5

2010-12-11T11:30:00.000-08:00

As Yelena Dembo has told me several times during lessons, "if your opponent is stronger than you and outplays you, then the best you can do is learn from the loss." Although today's game was a draw, for Yelena it meant losing the match and being eliminated from the Woman's World Championship tournament. All in all, she tried very hard to create imbalances in this game, but her opponent played well, defended well, and held the balance.

It is not for me to judge the play of an International Master, but I wondered during the game if 42. Bc3+ would have kept some chances for White, since it pushes the Black king to the edge of the board.

china 1, greece,0

2010-12-10T19:07:00.000-08:00

Yelena had a rough day at the office today, playing Black against a very strong Chinese player by the name of Zhao Xue. When I "tuned in" to the game, it looked like Yelena had some attacking chances in a Classical King's Indian, but White defended well and had Yelena all tied up by move 30. I don't know how IM Dembo managed to make the time control with her position still (somewhat) intact, but she did. The ending was played very well by Zhao Xue and she scored the full point.

Tomorrow is game 2, and of course Yelena must win in order to keep the match going.

and now, on to round three!

2010-12-08T13:53:00.000-08:00

The chess news world is referring to Yelena Dembo's victory over GM T. Kosintseva in the Woman's World Chess Championship as an upset, and rating-wise it definitely is. I watched nearly all of the first match game yesterday and a good portion of the second game today, and both are very exciting games. In an interview for "Europe Echecs" yesterday, Yelena said that she had a good opening and lost her way, giving her opponent a chance to have a dominating position. Time after time, GM Kosintseva missed the strongest continuation until she finally blundered and my chess coach pulled out a win with Black:

I admit that I expected GM Kosintseva to play 22. h5, and then 23. Nxg6 after her choice of 22. Qe4, but she did neither and eventually lost.

Today's game was interesting, and I really need to spend some quality time analyzing it. What struck me is how hard T. Kosintseva tried to find something - anything - to avoid the draw at the end.

on to round two - and the #4 seed...

2010-12-06T09:12:00.000-08:00

Here are both of Yelena's games from today's rapid tiebreak match. Being merely a club player, it looks to me like Yelena has stronger nerves than her opponent, who faltered badly in the final game.

Watching this game, I was quite amazed that Yelena held a draw. Shortly thereafter, what turned out to be the final game of the match was played:

For all this extra work, Yelena gets the privilege of playing 4th highest rated GM Tatiana Kosintseva of Russia, carries a hefty 2581 rating into this championship.

women's world chess championship

2010-12-05T18:21:00.000-08:00

The games of this year's Woman's World Chess Championship began in Turkey on Saturday. Sixty four players are invited to this event, playing mini-matches of two games in a knock-out format. Of course, most of the world's strongest chess-playing women are there, including top rated Humpy Koneru of India, current World Champion Alexandra Kosteniuk, Tatiana Kosintseva, and Yifan Hou of China. Yelena is seeded #29, which means that her first round opponent is rated fairly close to Yelena's own Elo rating. Predictably, their two games (one yesterday and one today) have been tough fights. Yesterday's game:

And today's game:

With the match tied at 1.0, the two will play a rapid match of two games on Monday as a tiebreak. It should prove to be quite exciting.

first game/15 minutes

2010-12-05T17:36:00.000-08:00

As shared before in this weblog, I have decided to play online games at a slower time control. On three different occasions I logged in at Chesscube.com and sought a game in 30 minutes. The one person who challenged me aborted the game without having made a move. This is rather annoying. So I played around with some more G/10 minutes contests and then, tonight, decided to try G/15 minutes. Unfortunately, my opponent was not up to the task:

Certainly not a thing of beauty, but I did find myself playing more deliberately.

note to self: adult beverages don't mix with chess

2010-12-02T13:00:00.000-08:00

Every now and then at a tournament I see someone having a bottle of beer while playing a rated game. This has always perplexed me, since my understanding of chess is that one needs clear thought processes in order to play it well - or, at least, as well as one is capable of playing. The players I have witnessed doing this are Class A and above players - not just some hacks camped out at the highest board number.

So, last evening, I conducted a little experiment at Chesscube.com. I consumed a total of two microbews while playing four games with a ten minute time limit for each player. I didn't really want to start my "game in 30 minutes" switch under these experimental conditions. I had just passed the 1700 mark (again!) and was challenged by one 1600+ and one high 1500 player. While it was not the disaster I anticipated, my score of +1-2=1 was less than pleasing, as were the two games I lost. The win and the draw were reasonable games against a pretty good player. The losses (one to each opponent) were quite ridiculous. In one, I miscalculated a pawn race, and in the other I overlooked that my opponent's bishop controlled from a long distance a square I thought was free. Could both of these errors occurred had I not had two 12 ounce bottles of beer? Definitely possible, but I know that my thinking was impaired at least a little.

It may be possible for some chess players to perform at their "normal" level while imbibing alcohol, but I don't think this is a good idea for me. Maybe this was a silly experiment, but I definitely learned something important about myself as a player.

gm maurice ashley's "secret to chess"

2010-11-30T13:58:00.000-08:00

Below is the text of a review I just submitted for publication on the blog at Wholesale Chess. No doubt it will be modified somewhat:

A Fresh New Face Presents “The Secret to Chess” by Greg Delaney

Chessbase has released dozens of very good training DVD’s in the past few years, featuring very capable and well-known presenters such as Andrew Martin, Alexei Shirov, and Viktor Bologan (and countless others). “The Secret to Chess,” by first time presenter GM Maurice Ashley is one of the best that I’ve seen during that time. GM Ashley from New York became the first African-American to earn the coveted international title in 1999, and has since become a polished chess commentator for events such as Kasparov’s matches against computer programs and the Anand-Kasparov World Championship match in 1995. Ashley’s skills at the chess board and in front of the camera serve him well in this DVD.

“The Secret to Chess” has about 4 hours of instruction by GM Ashley on a simple but profound idea: every move in chess has at least one “drawback.” Beginners and club players have some general understanding of this (“pawn moves always weaken squares,” for example) concept, but Ashley presents the idea literally as a way to play each and every chess game. He provides numerous examples of what he calls “Drawback Chess” or “Aikido Chess” (Ashley is a martial artist who is familiar with the Aikido style, based on taking advantage of the opponent’s imbalances and weakened areas). The examples begin with positions in which the “drawback” to a player’s move is relatively easy to spot, and gradually progress in difficulty and complexity. GM Ashley’s explanations of the drawbacks and how they are “punished” are detailed and clearly illustrated with the colored squares, arrows, etc. frequently seen in Chessbase DVD’s.

Ashley’s delivery style is lively and engaging: even his few errors are entertaining. His verbiage is sprinkled with words that communicate Ashley’s inherently aggressive style, and he comes across as really enjoying the presentation he is delivering. A small number of examples are from Ashley’s own games, and he provides excellent insight into the positions as one might expect. In addition, however, GM Ashley takes the viewer into his thought process, his emotions, and some of the psychology that takes place at the highest levels of chess. The emphasis of the DVD is on recognizing the drawbacks to the opponent’s moves and on taking advantage of these drawbacks to find very strong and even decisive moves. As a viewer, I was thoroughly engaged in the material for the entire 4 hours.
While “The Secret to Chess” focuses primarily on identifying and exploiting the drawbacks of the opponent’s moves, I have found it even more interesting to use this idea to help me identify the drawbacks of my moves when I lose games. In the past I have often been perplexed as to why I lost some games (in ways other than outright blunders, of course), and I have started to analyze these games from the “drawback” perspective. It becomes much easier to see why I lose when I look for the drawbacks of my moves and how my opponent exploited them. I consider this DVD a “must own” for any club/tournament player.

my roller coaster ride on chesscube.com

2010-11-22T12:46:00.001-08:00

On Friday, November 12th, my Chesscube rating was 1706 and I was feeling very good about how I was playing. The gain of rating points was secondary to the success I was having in seeing the board better and taking advantage of my opponents' mistakes. I played a 1770 player that night, and thus began a rather rapid tailspin, both in terms of rating and in terms of the quality of my play. I lost points and confidence rather quickly. By November 17 I was down to 1624 and I was confused about what I was doing "wrong." In a consultation, Yelena listened to my struggles and advised me to take a little more time during games (normally, I play at Game in 10 minutes). I was losing games sometimes with more than half my time remaining.

As a result, I tried to take a little more time in more complicated positions and use more care in examining opponent threats. These are, of course, common sense ideas that are basic to chess, but I had gone astray from them and was back to my impulsive, tunnel-vision tendencies. Since that "bottom," I've forced myself to play a little slower and to focus better on the opponents' threats. The result is a record of +8-1=1 and a new rating of 1697. I've had a couple more incidents of "up and down" play in the last few months, and my hunch is that the tunnel vision and impulsivity were the culprits then, too. I am definitely not saying that I am mistake-free or anything like that. I have blundered in games, but less often and I have recently been punishing my opponents' errors more regularly. Yelena has told me that by playing impulsively I not only overlook opponent threats, but I also miss the blunder fo which I could be taking advantage.

game for next lesson

2010-11-18T14:05:00.000-08:00

You are all welcome to have a look at the following game, played last night, with a G/10 minute time control.

Aside from the time pressure blunder 31...Re2?? (Black had 28 seconds left) this was quite an interesting and fun battle.

game notes

2010-11-17T18:48:00.000-08:00

[White "publius2@chesscube.com"]
[Black "uz_kamo@chesscube.com"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C45"]
[WhiteElo "1698"]
[BlackElo "1595"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nxd4 5. Qxd4 Nf6 6. Bg5 (6. e5 c5
(6... Nh5 7. g4) (6... Qe7 7. Be3) 7. Qe3 Nd5 8. Qe4 Nc7 9. Nc3)
6... d6 7. Nc3 c6 (7... Be7 8. O-O-O O-O) 8. O-O-O Be7 9. f4 (9. e5 dxe5 10.
Qxe5) (9. Bf4) (9. Bxf6 Bxf6 (9... gxf6) 10. Qxd6 Qxd6 11. Rxd6 Be6) 9... c5 (
9... b5) 10. Qd2 (10. Bb5+ Bd7 11. Qd3) 10... O-O 11. Bd3 (11. h3 a6 12. g4 b5
13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. g5) 11... Bg4 (11... h6 12. Bh4 a6) 12. Rde1 a6 13. h3 (13.
f5) 13... Be6 14. g4 b5 15. f5 Bd7 16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. h4 Bxc3 (17... Qa5 18. e5
Bxe5 19. Rxe5 dxe5 20. f6) 18. Qxc3 b4 19. Qd2 Qa5 (19... Bb5) 20. Kb1 (20. f6
Qxa2 21. Qg5) 20... Rac8 21. Qe2 (21. f6 c4 22. e5) (21. Bc4) 21... Bb5 22. f6
Bxd3 (22... c4 23. Qe3 gxf6 (23... cxd3 24. Qg5) 24. Be2) 23. Qxd3 g6 24.
Qe3 Kh8 25. g5 (25. h5) 25... c4 26. h5 c3 27. hxg6 fxg6 28. Qh3 (28. Rxh7+
Kxh7 29. Qh3+ Kg8 30. Qe6+ (30. Qh6) 30... Rf7 31. Qxc8+ Rf8 32. Qe6+ Rf7 33.
Qe8+) 28... Rf7 29. Qxc8+ Rf8 30. Qxf8# 1-0

I've spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out how to have the game and notes posted in a way that readers could simply play through the game, much as one can with Chessbase cbv file but I have no clue how to do this, so I simply copied and pasted the annotated game. Near as I can tell, readers did a pretty good job with their own comments!

past week's post

2010-11-15T16:33:00.000-08:00

Due to unforeseen complications in life, I have not been able to post the presented game and lesson annotations. I apologize for this, and plan to remedy the situation on Tuesday, November 16.

Update: If anyone knows of a way that I can post the game along with the notes I have, please contact me. Middle-aged = less than computer savvy

another lesson using a 10 minute game...

2010-11-10T18:37:00.000-08:00

The 10 minute blitz game in question is the following:

Let's see what our panel of expert blog visitors thinks about this game... :) The lesson took place this past Monday and featured quite an interesting examination of both player's moves.

the best laid plans...

2010-10-31T19:25:00.000-07:00

When a few weeks ago I sent in my registration for the Wisconsin Veteran's Open next weekend, I did so with enthusiasm and high expectations. My hopes were to put a halt to my recent rating slide and to simply play better chess. With the unfortunate tragedy of October 22nd occupying so much time and attention, I knew my preparation for the tournament would take a hit; it became clear in the past few days that my obligations as a parent and grandparent would make it impossible to devote an entire weekend to chess. A widowed 30 year old with two small boys needs family in her life - a lot. So, I have chosen to withdraw from the event in order to free that weekend for whatever is needed of me.

I have been operating with only my laptop computer because of a deteriorating hard drive in our home PC. My stepson seems confident that he will be able to save most, if not all, the data on the hard drive. This would be very good, since all of my chess programs and study files are on it. In the interim (while he tries to reclaim everything and transfer it to a new drive), I've downloaded the Playchess.com software, Skype, and a couple of other useful programs. I also have bokmarked several favorite sites, including Chesscube, the Chess Museum blog, and the Wholesale Chess site. Working with a laptop is definitely different than using a larger PC monitor, and keyboard. With the downloading eforts today, I'll have the tools in place to have a chess lesson on Monday the 8th. No Chessbase DVD's right now, and some of the material sent by Bob Long after the Clinic will have to wait until the new hard drive is ready.

chess clinic 6

2010-10-25T19:39:00.000-07:00

I don't know what other attendees would say, but I very much enjoyed and learned at the last chess clinic held by Bob Long this past weekend. Although my enjoyment was somewhat tempered by news of the passing of a family member, Chess Clinic #6 was well worth the time and money spent. IM Andrew Martin was his usual engaging self, and the group of 35 or so chessplayers was an enjoyable collection of interesting people. On this occasion, I was able to join the crowd for a post-clinic social event and dinner, which helped me squeeze even more out of the time spent.

I would say that the clinic was at least as much a social gathering as it was a learning experience. We were provided with an interesting variety of lessons and activities, as well as ample opportunities to purchase all kinds of good stuff. IM Martin shared ideas about attacking the opponent's king as well as some king and pawn ending positions. He is quite adamant in the belief that chess learning should begin with the endgame, move into the middle game, and only after these two aspects have been assimilated should study of openings be attempted in earnest. We all knew, of course, that just the opposite is the modus operandi of most players.

The final session was the now regular analysis of best moves at certain junctures of a GM game with the awarding and deducting of points for good and bad moves. I became acquainted with one of this blog's readers, Gary, as we were a team during this activity. I fared much better point-wise this time than I did at the last clinic, but my score wasn't good enough to put me in contention for a prize. I was happy to have selected moves that were correct and missed by a number of people, but I also chose some weak moves. Andrew made a comment on Facebook today that the clinic felt very much like a gathering of friends - at least as much a social event as anything else. I agree with him.

pre-clinic work

2010-10-19T07:18:00.000-07:00

I would like to extend my thanks to blog reader Rob, who earlier this morning notified me of how long it has been since I last posted. Rob, you are quite right, and I will amend that situation now. This coming Friday I will be motoring my way to Davenport, Iowa for the 6th and final chess clinic hosted by Bob Long at the Clarion Hotel. Main presenter IM Andrew Martin has already sent out some material on which participants may work prior to the clinic. One of the files contains a very great many tactical exercises to whet our appetites for some of the clinic activities. Andrew has an infectous enthusiasm for work on chess, and some of the notes he provides with the positions reflects his humor and energy. I am very grateful for the opportunities I have had to get modestly acquainted with IM Martin over the past few years. I still have the game scores of two blitz encounters we had as part of a chess lesson he provided for me. While clearly outclassed, I did manage to play decently in one of the games.

I received the Chessbase 11 upgrade yesterday and installed it this morning. Because of an obscene workload right now, I don't even have time to explore its functions right now, which is annoying, but I'd rather defer that chess fun than be unemployed and have all kinds of time to play with software. The graphic design is different, now matching the format at Chessbase.com, but that's all I have been able to see so far. I may be put off a little by the pop-up advertising what greets me whenever I go to Chessbase News, but I must admit that I've never had any problem with the company's software. Installation was simple since this is an upgrade of a prior edition, and even I at 52 years of age was able to navigate the process. I am hoping that after the clinic I'll be able to get back to a regular chess routine.

I had a little "hiccup" as far as rating goes at Chesscube.com. Upon reaching 1700+, I managed to lose four straight games and it took me awhile to get back to my current rating of exactly 1700. When I look over the log of about 100 games that I've played there recently, there is a clear pattern of winning and losing streaks. There are periods of time when I feel like I see the game better and play reasonably well. These are often followed by shorter streaks of blunders and silly play that I cannot explain. My thought is that consistency is lacking, and my expectation is that I'll be working on that until I assume room temperature.

This past Friday's chess lesson featured a game played by Yelena in the recent Olympiad. She had Black against a very familiar opponent named Eva Moser. We literally spent nearly an hour looking at this game. Yelena provides me with some annotations and diagrams about the game to save for later study, but for me the most valuable part of the experience is the description of preparation, psychological factors, and recognition of themes, patterns, and ideas from previous lessons. I learned more about IM Moser and how she plays and how Yelena plays against her. For example, Moser is a very tactical attacking player who is less strong at positional chess and is often in time trouble early because she calculates aggressive lines that aren't called for in the position. As a result, Yelena prepares more positionally-oriented openings that offer complications. In this way, she presents her opponent with many choices - oriented towards positional principles - that cause her opponent to use up a lot of time on the clock and push IM Moser into positions in which she is less comfortable. All of these bits of background information are rarely seen in annotated master games, so I get a chance to learn more about how strong players plan and think.

posting before the week begins

2010-10-10T12:15:00.000-07:00

During the past few weeks, I have myself fairly busy at Chesscube.com, playing G/10 games against a variety of players there. On one occasion, I made a draw with a 1790 player and my rating there hit 1700. I have never reached that point in any form of chess, at any site, and definitely not yet in USCF over-the-board play. This success was brief, since I then lost three straight games to go back down to 1665. It's not the ponts so much that bothered me about this decline as it was the way I misplayed the games. In two of the three I was ahead in material against a higher rated player and just imploded. The third was a silly loss to a 1500 player - a game during which I used much more time than normal. I definitely was not thinking well that evening. I was able to win a couple of games since to bring me back up to 1682. The last hame was a victory for Yelena's maxim that active play is a must. I lost a piece early on but had two bishops and an active queen. Constant pressure won me back material and I had a passed pawn that was unstoppable at the end,

At this time in two weeks I will be returning from Davenport, Iowa after completing the 6th and final chess clinic hosted by Bob Long and Andrew Martin. I am very curious about a number of things related to this clinic: Bob's new book about his discovery of a secret about chess, Andrew's thoughts on endgames, and the contents of the gift bag that will be given to each participant. There are still spots available for the clinic. Any interested reader can find more information here. You may also send me an e-mail if you'd like my perspective of an event like this.

belated olympic news

2010-10-06T16:26:00.000-07:00

Due to a great many life events, I have not been able to share some final thoughts on the chess Olympiad and the results. First of all, the results of the American teams should be noted. The men's team placed 9th on tiebreaks with a +7-2=2 result. Since this was the team seeded 9th by rating, I guess we can say that they met expectations. Losses to Israel and and Russia 1 (placed 3rd and 2nd respectively) took them out of contention for a medal. Gata Kamsky had the best result of the "regulars" (GM Hess scored 3/4 as an alternate) with 7/10. Both of his losses were to the teams that beat the US in their matches. The Ukraine ended up taking the gold with an undefeated +8=3 score. On the women's side, team USA placed 5th, having been seeded 6th by rating, so we can say they did a little better than expected. Their match score was the same as the men's score (+7-2=2) with the losses coming against Russia 2 and Georgia. Overall, the high scorer for the US women was Board 4's Kamile Baginskaite, who scored 6/8. Top board Irina Krush scored 7/11, including a loss to Greg's chess coach. Russia 1 scored a perfect 11/11, with China (+9-2=0) and Georgia (+7-2=2) taking silver and bronze (Georgia won the prize on tiebreaks).

Of course, I also followed the women's team from Greece. This team far exceeded its rating expectations by placing 12th when it was seeded 21st. Perhaps surprisingly (to me, at least) was the excellent result of their 3rd board, Marina Makropoulou, who carries a FIDE rating of 2230, but scored a lofty 8/10. According to the final team tallies, she gained about 38 rating points - quite an achievement! Yelena held down board one all the way, except for one "day off" and scored +4-1=5. Her only loss was to the strong GM Thanh Trang Hoang, playing board one for Hungary. All in all, there were some great individual performances during this event, some of which we all can read about at other chess venues.

chess olympiad

2010-09-29T10:46:00.000-07:00

I am acquainted with the idea that the host country at a chess Olympiad may field a second team, either as a "house team" for pairing purposes or because they have some aspiring talents for whom it wants some strong competition. I have never heard of FIVE such teams, as Russia has in the Open Section of this year's chess Olympiad. At least there are "only" three in the Women's section. And we are to believe that FIDE is somehow a legitimate governing body? Speaking of which, millionaire and alien abduction survivor Kirsan Ilyumzhinov was re-elected as the president of FIDE, outdistancing challenger Karpov by a significant margin. Ilyumzhinov will continue to run FIDE as long as he has his nice stable of small eastern countries in his pocket.

But, back to the Olympiad for a while. Current leaders in the Open Division are 1) Ukraine (+6=2), 2. Russia 1 (+6-1=1), 3. Georgia (+6-1=1), 4. Azerbaijan (+6-1=1), 5. Hungary (+6-1=1) 6. Armenia (+6-1=1). The US team is 9th right now on tiebreaks with +5-1=2. After a great start, Nakamura has slowed down with two losses in the last three games. Playing top board in an Olympiad is truly a difficult feat. Today, team USA held a draw with the powerful team from China, and they play Bulgaria tomorrow. On the Women's side, the leaders are 1) Russia 1 (a perfect +8-0=0!), 2) Serbia (!) (+6-1=1), and Russia 2 (+5-0=3) with the Chinese women in 4th, one half match point behind. The US team is 15th with a +5-2=1 record, losing to Russia 2 and Georgia. They play Greece tomnorrow, so I'll be torn between the two teams. Yelena told me that she'll be playing IM Krush on Board 1. She thinks the USA team is stronger overall than her team, but my sense is that the Americans have lost a little bit of the zip they had earlier on.

The talk of the tournament has been the incredible performance of Vassily Ivanchuk on Board 1 for the Ukraine. He was (finally) slowed by a draw with Kramnik after 6 consecutive wins. Among his victims were GM's Sokolov, Leko, and Jobava (who had earlier defeated Magnus Carlsen). Right now they are calculating a rating increase of 18.4 points - this may not sound like much, but at this level it's a huge gain - and a performance rating of 3033! For the women, IM Elina Danielian of Armenia is the top peforfmance rating at 2646. The USA's Irina Krush has done a laudable job on Board 1 with 5.5/8 points. IM Dembo currently has 4/7 on Board 1 for Greece. World #1 Magnus Carlsen is 4/6, losing to both Jobava and to Michael Adams of England. Of course, there have been the usual rating upsets and unexpected team losses - just today the French men's team took out Russia 2 with one win and three draws.

another reasonable effort

2010-09-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

I hope to post some news about the chess Olympiad sometime soon - I simply have no time right now to get into a more in-depth posting. The following game was played a few days ago and featured a more mild version of a disgruntled opponent. It was played just before dinner, so I didn't have time to accept the rematch request I received. My opponent's response: "Boring player!" What to do?

And lest some reader think that my blog has become a display board for good games I have played, have a look at this piece of chess blindness:

Oops...

the crazy world of internet chess

2010-09-23T11:33:00.000-07:00

I've been to enough chess events in my lifetime to know that not every player is a good loser. I can recall junior tournaments back in the 1970's in my native Minnesota during which enraged losers swept all the pieces off of the board or yelled at their opponents and stalked away instead of resigning. We can all speculate on the possible mental disorders that prompted such behavior. Last night at Chesscube.com I had a chance to be on the receiving end of a disgruntled opponent's wrath. This is the game:

It was in this position that my opponent realized he had blundered with 29. Ne4 and asked me if I would accept a "takeback" move. I declined (actually, my account there specifies that I do not accept them, but I still had to click on "decline) and there was a brief pause before he offered a draw. Setting aside the rule about having to make your move before making such an offer, this was ludicrous as I have forced checmate. I declined the draw offer. There was another pause and then the message that I "must" allow him a takeback move. All the while, of course, his clock is ticking away. I declined one more time, and then got a message about how he has "had sex" (******) with my mother, father, and sister, and that he ****** my sister for two dollars.

I actually did a double-take at this message, not exactly believing that someone would type such a thing because he is losing a game. I didn't reply and simply waited for his time to run out (it was a G/10 minute contest). I was awarded the game on time and my opponent disappeared. Just to set the record straight, my biological father is deceased and I have no sisters. Anyway, I kept thinking about how silly the whole thing was. Objectively, he may have an advantage in the position if he plays something besides 29. Ne4, but what was the big deal? It's an Internet game, for Heaven's sake! "Just resign and we'll play another."

This was my final game of the night, again at G/10, and I feel pretty good about how the last few moves unfolded.

This was actually the rubber game between us. I'd overlooked mate on the move in a won position in game 2 to even the score at 1:1. At least this person didn't swear at me. :)

chess.com gives the boot to my chess trainer

2010-09-21T07:04:00.000-07:00

In a note under my last blog entry, reader "Rocky" posted a link to "Lousy at Chess," an excellent chess weblog. The posting there described the accusations of people at Chess.com that IM Yelena Dembo had used computer assistance in games there, and reported that Dembo's account was closed. There is mention of some form of statistical analysis of her games versus moves that Rybka suggests these games, with a high correlation of Yelena's moves and those of Tybka. The conflict even reached a point of a threatened lawsuit. I thank "Rocky" for posting this, since I had no idea that this was going on.

As one of IM Dembo's students, I am, of course, troubled by these allegations. I need to state in total honesty that this controversy was wholly unknown to me until "Rocky's" comment was posted. As part of lessons, IM Dembo and I have gone over a number of games she has played on various chess servers. We have discussed the phenomenon of computer use for Internet games, and how foolish such actions are. No mention of Chess.com has ever been made. I subscribe to the legal ideal that an individual is to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because of my unfamiliarity with statistics and the methods of move analysis and comparison cited by those at Chess.com, I don't feel adequately knowledgeable to comment on the alleged evidence. As a low-level club player, however, it seems to me that, since the games identified were online correspondance games with up to three days to submit a move, that it's not unreasonable to think that an International Master rated a bit below 2500 could very often find the best moves in given positions without computer assistance. This is a part of my "reasonable doubt."

I find it interesting that this action took place very shortly prior to an internationally significant team competition at which IM Dembo is playing board one for the women's team from Greece - especially since the games cited occurred in 2008. Perhaps it is merely coincidence; I have no information about the background of this issue. I have read over the comments from what I assume to be Chess.com personnel towards IM Dembo and must say that they are more emotion-laden, angry, and vindictive than I would expect from a professional organization. I guess I would use the word "shrill" to describe the tone. As I wrote to "LinuxGuy" just now, I play online chess sometimes at Playchess.com and have seen occasional messages posted about someone who allegedly cheated by using computer assistance, stating that the account is closed and the player's rating eliminated. But I've not sensed the kind of outrage (or maybe just rage) that I picked up at Chess.com. This constitutes more of my "reasonable doubt."

Given what I have learned about IM Yelena Dembo over the last couple of years, computer "cheating" by her would be very, very incongruent. I am not saying it couldn't happen - I am saying it's quite a stretch for me to imagine it, given how I have been treated as a student, which is to say, excellently. Since she is in the midst of a very important team competition, I have no intention whatsoever of even raising the topic with her in the near future, and may never do so. It is the quality of chess instruction and guidance I have received that really matters, anyway. One of the posters at Chess.com reasoned that Yelena was likely guilty of this behavior because she had more to gain from cheating than Chess.com had to gain from the accusation. While this "logic" may seem plausible on the surface, we do not know the background of the relationship between IM Dembo and Chess.com. I simply do not know the nature of the motives behind the allegation. Chess.com may simply be trying to protect the integrity of its playing zone. On the other extreme, someone there could have an axe to grind and wish to sully IM Dembo's reputation.

These are my thoughts and feelings, as objective as I can be about the situation. Without more data, it is pointless to speculate any further. Thanks for reading.

implementation

2010-09-18T13:12:00.000-07:00

Yelena provided me with a lesson yesterday, before getting ready to head for Siberia and the chess Olympiad. I had sent her one of online chess games with a plea for some insight into the cause of some poor defending on my part. I have lost many games online by making a huge blunder (or two) after achieving a superior position. While I am happy with my Chesscube.com rating of 1658, I know it would more accurately reflect my playing strength if I could eliminate or even reduce some of the oversights that have tainted many of my games.

A summary of insights provided by the lesson is: 1) Many times, a King's Indian Defense formation is a good choice against irregular openings like a Reversed Stonewall and various out-of-theory Queen's Pawn games. 2) When playing this way, a good and basic strategy is to play for ...e7-e5. 3) Play actively, especially in blitz games. 4) Whenever possible, make a move that creates a threat. 5) Ask yourself: "what does my opponent's last move threaten?" 6) Remember where your pieces are.

A few entries back, "chesstiger" made a comment about my realizing that one of my problems is failing to visualize the entire board. I think I had a cognitive awareness of this tendency, but Yelena showed me in the game I sent where it was clear that I narrowed my board vision down to the area where action is taking place. "Chesstiger" was prophetic with his comment - I do indeed lose sight of the entire board when things get tense. This "tunnel vision" allows me to do things like move rooks to exposed squares and place knights on unprotected squares where they can readily be captured.

I share the following game to show how the feedback of a chess trainer (and some blog readers) can be constructively implemented.

My opponent lost on time while I still had a little over 5 minutes left. As much as possible I tried to play along the lines of the feedback I was given the day before. I'd like to think that this game more accurately shows the level at which I am capable of playing.

playing a little catch-up today

2010-09-15T11:06:00.000-07:00

Greetings, readers and visitors! I've been plenty busy trying to keep my head above water at work, and I apologize for my inconsistent blogging. I don't have enough time to prepare a properly written entry, so this will be more of a "bullet-point" catch-up entry.

I see by the calendar's always accurate display that the Sixth and Final Chess Clinic in Davenport, IA is only a little over 5 weeks away. According to Bob Long's own blog, "The Chess Museum," there are now 35 paid participants, just 15 shy of the 50 Bob is hoping for. If anyone who reads this would like more information about this clinic (October 22-23), please let me know. I've been to two others and can provide you with my own impressions - not a sales pitch.

The Chess Olympiad is scheduled to begin on September 19th and it looks like the United States Men's team is the strongest in history: the line-up of Nakamura, Kamsky, Onischuk, Shulman, and Hess is an impressive list from top to bottom. How would you like to be playing board three and find out that GM Alexander Onischuk is your opponent? :) The Women's Team of Krush, Zatonskih, Abrahamyan, Baginskaite, and Foisor is perhaps less imposing, but very experienced when it comes to international team competition. I will be watching the Women's Team from Greece, of course, since my chess trainer will be holding down board 1.

Because of work I have had less time to study and to play than I would like. I continue to work on Yelena Dembo's daily puzzles and believe that these are helping me to stay at least somewhat sharp. I've been playing games at Chesscube.com now and then, usually game/5 minutes or game/5 minutes +3 seconds, but I've played a few game/10 minutes, too. At one point I reached my highest rating ever at 1690, but i promptly lost to a 1576 and dropped down to my current 1657. It has been a little disturbing this past week to note the major blunders I've made recently. My last three games "featured" clear oversights on my part, with plenty of time on the clock. I managed to win two of them, and in the last game I was significantly ahead in material before hanging a bishop and a rook. I am not sure if it was sloppiness of tiredness or what, but I have committed myself to being more attentive at the board.

bent larsen (1935-2010)

2010-09-10T14:08:00.000-07:00

Grandmaster Bent Larsen of Denmark is unfortunately best remembered for his 0-6 loss to Bobby Fischer in the 1971 Candidates semi-final match. He and Fischer were the strongest Western chessplayers of the late 60's and early 70's, with Larsen winning numerous tournaments and defeating Fischer twice. His uncompromising will to win and tendency to play exciting, innovative chess are well known to any student of the game. I had occasion to meet and to face GM Larsen in a simultaneous exhibition in 1974. Interestingly, while I lost the game, I placed second in the tournament held in conjunction with the exhibition, scoring +4-0=2. This is the game:

Normally, the player giving the exhibition takes the White pieces for all the games, but not so Larsen. He alternated the board colors. Yes, I played like a terrified rabbit, but GM Larsen graciously signed my scorebook, and shook my hand. When you are a 17 year old Class C player, that's an unforgettable memory. Rest in Peace, GM Larsen.

an off night...

2010-09-09T08:22:00.000-07:00

Last evening I played three online games at Chesscube.com (by the way, my screen name there is "publius2") and I clearly wasn't at my best. The first game saw me mangle the Black side of an Alapin Sicilian despite the fact I'd looked more closely at it very recently. After 1. e4, c5; 2. c3, d5; 3. exd5, Qxd5; 4. d4, Nc6; 5. Nf3, Bg4; 6. Be2, cxd4; 7. cxd4, I somehow "forgot" that Black needs to play 7 ...e6 in order to free the Bf8 for pinning duties if White plays 8. Nc3. The result was that my queen was chased around the board and I ended up being checkmated in 34 moves.

I found a new opponent for games two and three. He dropped his queen on move 18 playing the Black side of a Scotch Game. This is the only game where I played decently and I guess I consider it to have been "spoiled" by a huge blunder on my opponent's part. In the rematch, I got to face the 3. Bb5 variation of the Sicilian and totally lost the thread of the game. I was a piece and three pawns down at one point, but my opponent was short on time so I kept playing. My only asset was a passed a-pawn and he blundered the piece trying to win the pawn. So it was king, rook, and two separated passed pawns against my king and rook and I created enough difficulties and annoyance that I salvaged a draw. Had he known more about rook endings he likely would have won.

All the games were 5 minutes + 5 seconds per move, because I could not find anyone who wanted a longer game. I learned, however poorly I played, that I still tend to get focused on my own plans and overlook those of my opponent, and that persistence and fighting spirit can salvage games.

for entertainment purposes only...

2010-09-06T13:58:00.000-07:00

The following blitz game was played a little while ago and shows why I keep saying that I have a long way to go:

And, yes, I was running out of time. :) I did win a rematch, though.

This game was last night's foray into Chesscube.com's playing environment:

This win brought my rating up to 1651, which is my highest online rating ever and, coincidentally, is my highest over-the-board rating ever.

competency

2010-09-01T11:38:00.000-07:00

In a technical college setting, knowledge is less important overall than the ability to apply knowledge and skills in the work situation. I personally think that this is a superior method of educating people but I have considerable bias since I have worked at such a college for 14 years. I know for certain that I was in no way qulaified to do any particular job competently upon graduation from the University of Minnesota. I am not at all certain that my completion of the graduate program in community counseling left me competent to provide counseling services to people - I was already at that time a certified substance abuse counselor and the specialized training and experience I had previously obtained formed the core of my competency. Fine, Greg, but what has this to do about your progress in chess?

I've been told by many people, friends and family, that I seem to know a lot about chess. I have gathered and intellectually processed a great deal of chess information (obviously, not nearly what is possessed by very strong players) and I cognitively understand a fair amount about the game. This, however, is maddeningly insufficient. For all the knowledge I have gained, my results in tournaments since I returned have been quite poor. I have lost over 100 rating points over the past five years. I can attribute some of that erosion to the strength of players nowadays as compared to those during the 1970's. I believe, however, that that greater reasons for my poor results are psychological and an inability to apply the knowledge I have to game situations.

In an attempt to explain this reasoning, I refer to recent experiences in online chess games and in various training activities. There is no question whatsoever that I feel more competent and confident when I play chess online. I've been playing players higher rated than myself - something I wasn't doing several months ago because I was unsure about my abilities. Yes, I have lost some games and made some bad moves, but I have also saved lost positions and won games I might have resigned in the past. I believe that this has to do with being able to apply what I have been learning to game situations. I don't feel nearly as "lost" during a game as I have in the past. I can recognize positional factors much better, and I see tactical opportunities that I know I would have missed in the recent past. Even as I think ahead to the next local tournament, I do not feel as intimidated by the prospect of playing a highly rated player. I believe that a lack of confidence in my capabilities and potential (I'm not through yet by a long shot) cost me many games before they even began.

I have faithfully worked on the daily quiz positions at Yelena's website and have improved my confidence by regularly (not perfectly) finding the correct moves and/or ideas. I have been given a number of exercises on which to work, and have done reasonably well on them. Currently, I am working on a series of endgame positions with atypical material imbalances (for example, the first one was K + R versus K + 2 far-advanced passed pawns). My task is to annotate them based on the ideas and strategy displayed by both sides. For whatever reason, I no longer feel "stupid" when confronted by these challenges - even getting them wrong initially isn't bothering me as long as I can eventually discover the best ideas and moves. I've not had a chance to play in an over-the-board tournament since the Green Bay Open, sao the jury is still out as to my ability to apply myself successfully to games in the stressful environment of a competition, but I know I surely do feel better about playing in one, and I think this is about a newfound ability to apply learning to the actual task at hand.

making a ten minute Internet game a lesson

2010-08-28T17:07:00.000-07:00

Recently, I posted a game I played at Chesscube.com that was played at 10 minutes per person. I spent a good amount of time looking it over and preparing some notes for this game. One might wonder of what value such a game would be. I found out this past Friday, when Yelena and I spent our full hour lesson examining it more closely and expertly. I learned in this morning lesson that any game, regardless of time control or setting, can be a treasure-trove of learning.

The game, of course, is Greg versus "Gatogato" from a few days ago. I thought I had annotated it reasonably competently, but I found out why an International Master posseses this title. I'm not going to go into all of the specifics, but I did learn a number of things - deeper understanding of both opening and endgame principles and identifying how I often stray from what I know to be true about chess from the lessons I have had. Yes, it was only a ten-minute game, and I don't take it too seriously. But, on the other hand, it was very helpful to see how someone much stronger evaluated the positions and was able to create additional lessons from one Internet game. I know that in the past I didn't consider these kinds of games to be useful, but I've been converted. In some ways, the faster time limit shows more clearly a player's understanding of a position and tendencies in decision-making. I have a load of endgame positions to evaluate from this one game.

food for thought (analysis)

2010-08-21T17:53:00.000-07:00

Let's see what fun we can have with this 5 minute game, just finished on Chesscube.com:

Black lost on time, but I'm thinking his position isn't very good anyway. Let's find out.

a new tenant

2010-08-18T15:05:00.000-07:00

Now that the academic year is about to begin (one week from today), I am going to need more structure and discipline to maintain my chess playing and studying regimen. Summer always seems to pass by so quickly, and all the long afternoons of Internet games and chess lessons and tactical puzzles become mere whispers from the past. I do believe that this was a fruitful summer as far as chess learning goes. Just the other day I noticed a new occupant in my chess mind: something called "confidence."

I've heard of this state of mind before, and I have it in a number of areas of my life. Previously, however, confidence was lacking in my pursuit of chess. There is no question that I have been the target of ample positive feedback about improvement. However true the perceptions of others are, it really doesn't matter until one's own perception changes to the reality of a situation. I've been realizing that a subtle shift has happened in how I look at Yelena's daily quiz. Initially, I was unsure about my ability to "solve" these puzzles, but now I approach them much differently. There have been a few solutions that I've missed, but many more that have been correct. The board and pieces are "clearer" in my mind and I can see opportunities more quickly.

I have purposely put opening theory on hold for the most part, although I am taking a look at different ways to meet the Trompowsky. My focus recently has been middle game positions, both tactical and positional in nature. Many coaches and strong players have told me or have written in books that to understand more about the game itself is far better than learning openings. Not that one should neglect that aspect of the game, but at club level most games are not decided in the opening, anyway. Besides, the better one knows positional and tactical elements, the more likely one is to play sound openings, even if they are not "memorized."

I am planning to explore the Chesscube.com world of online tournaments in the very near future, with a view to quelling some of the nervousness I feel in competition. Yelena has told me a few times that it is necessary to play a lot in order for the tournament games to feel more "normal:" in other words, the novelty wears off, the adrenaline settles down, and a sense of familiar calm can emerge. This is what I want to have, if at all possible, before the Veteran's Open in Oshkosh in November. I know that nervousness is part of the game, but to have it reduced significantly so that my thinking processes are more concentrated would be a great thing.

a couple of reviews

2010-08-15T14:19:00.000-07:00

I have mentioned before that I like GM Adrian Mikhalchisin's work for Chessbase. He makes me think of a wizened Soviet trainer from the 1970's - heavy Russian accent, not a lot of personality, and very informative - insistent, even. I have just finished two of his more recent DVDs, the "Power of Exchange" and the "Power of Planning." I would love to give these bits of work a "two thumbs up," but I can't quite do that, much to my dismay.

In these DVDs, Michalchisin presents numerous games and game fragments to illustrate the points of his brief lectures about particular aspects of these two subjects. There is ample material for close study, and the games themselves are worthy of playing through over and over again. When a well-known Grandmaster provides commentary on the games of such chess luminaries as Botvinnik, Fischer, Rubenstein, and Petrosian, one should take the opportunity to watch and listen. The games illustrate very well points about everything from Tarrasch's maxim that what remains on the board after the exchange is what matters to showing Mikhalchisin's own failed plans against players such as the late Efim Geller.

So, what is my complaint? Well, it is a combination of GM Mikhalchisin's accent and on many occasions the speed at which he presents the games and move sequences. It is clear that the man knows chess and that he has done a great deal of research in order to present this material. But for those of us who don't yet possess an international title, the "rapid-fire" playing through game continuations make clear understanding of the points illustrated very, very difficult. I found myself having to review portions of the DVDs several times in order to understand the points being made. Perhaps he was pressed for time and tried to put as much material as possible in the DVDs. Maybe the problem lies with me and my unfamiliarity with higher levels of chess and the Russian language. I am not sure - perhaps a blend of both. So I can't give a "five star" evaluation of these DVDs, but I can say with certainty that with some patience on the viewer's part, a great deal of useful learning can take place.

the truth might hurt, but it's the only way to improve...

2010-08-14T16:59:00.000-07:00

During some of my classes, I remind the students that "the best feedback in the world is worthless if the client doesn't hear it." What I am trying to convey to them is the importance of delivery when it comes to sharing "constructive criticism" with their clients. When feedback is shared in a judgemental, callous, or even hurtful way, people instinctively become defensive, believing that they are being personally attacked. Much more effective is to present what needs to be said in a way that conveys an alliance: "you and I are on the same team here," so to speak.

One of the aspects of my chess playing that has troubled me for a long while is my perpetual tendency towards superficiality. This is not only shown in occasional impulsive and poorly-selected moves, but also in a lack of imagination and ideas in my games. At first, I was more of a "reactor" as a chessplayer. I would respond to opponent's threats and play moves that were passive and usually defensive in nature. This was due in part to a huge gap in knowledge about and understanding of chess. I have learned that it is very difficult to play for the initiative if I am unfamiliar with the kinds of plans and strategies available to me in any given position. Many months ago, Yelena told me that one of the problems I have, and one that is common among American chessplayers, is that I simply haven't seen enough chess positions and haven't constructed a foundation of basic chess knowledge.

Yesterday, Yelena commented on my apparent difficulty in finding "interesting" aspects of a position and from these creating some kind of plan. She was not cruel or cold about it; she simply stated what she saw. And she is right. What I have been calling "superficiality" is really a symptom of chess ignorance. Note that I do not use the word "stupidity." Ignorance is the state of lacking information, insight, and/or experience. I need to train myself to look more deeply into positions to find nuggets of ideas I have seen in other games. Additionally, I need to familiarize myself with many more ideas and strategies so that my contemplation of positions will be more fruitful. To keep it simple, strong chessplayers have countless ideas, positions, and strategies at their disposal. I lack this storehouse of information, so I don't recognize opportunities to initiate plans, strategies, and tactics. Just as Sherlock Holmes could see things in crime scenes and interpret data in ways that baffled the "regular" police, I need to be able to see and to interpret deeply-hidden "clues" in chess positions.

a puzzle a day...

2010-08-11T15:21:00.000-07:00

Today's installment of the daily chess puzzle at Yelena Dembo's weblog is a great opportunity to work on opposite color bishop endgames. It can be found here. I found it to be quite challenging, edifying, and somewhat frustrating. Even so, working on it for the time I did this afternoon was very helpful. This position is different from previous puzzles in that what is necessary to find is the idea and not just a key move. I am not too bad at spotting the "winning move," but to have to look at a position, to try to understand it, and then to use everything I know about endgames to develop a plan is more difficult for me.

At first glance, it was hard for me to see any way for White to win - and there isn't an immediately decisive move. The more I looked at the position, however, the clearer my vision got, and I settled on an idea. Then came the calculation, falsification of moves, checking and re-checking, and then finding what I saw to be a winning variation, which I submitted as a comment. I guess we can say that my effort today was a draw: I had the right idea, but not quite the proper execution. Seeing the actual continuation was helpful, too, because I saw where my variation broke down and alternative defenses for Black. I'm not sure how I would have handled this puzzle a year ago (it's so hard to remember how you played previously), but I doubt I would have considered the ideas and moves I did today. No rating points, but good work. :)

chess lesson

2010-08-07T14:04:00.000-07:00

It is always for me a good experience to have a chess lesson.Sometimes, I get so caught up in my own thoughts and ideas that I forget how refreshing it is to have someone else look at games with a more highly skilled and better-trained pair of eyes. That idiom needs somehow to be attached to the brain, since the ocular orbs can only report data to the brain anyway. Nonetheless, the regular chess lesson helps me stay "grounded" in the world of chess leanring.

On Friday, Yelena and I played through both of my losses from the Green Bay Open. I was impressed by the amount of insight she had about the games. Yelena pointed out things that neither I nor my impromptu band of readers noted, which I suppose is why she has an international title and I am far removed from such skill. Besides what one might call the "regular" analysis, I was given a repertoire against the Trompowsky (turns out that my 2 ...c5 is quite theoretical and not suited for my current level of play), and the following ideas to consider and on which to work:

At my level, I should be comfortable with my understanding and knowledge of every opening in my repertoire. It is helpful to not rely on book variations and even the theory Yelena gives me. Looking over Master-level games in which these openings are featured, especially wins by "my side," is more important so I understand the ideas of the given opening. Before moving, I need to consider if the selected move follows or violates established principles of chess. If my opponent chooses to not take the center, I should seek to do so myself. I need more play - longer time controls and over-the-board if possible - so that I become more comfortable in the competitive situation. I need to remember that in general any kind of exchange benefits only one of the players, and that it should be I. I need after every move to ask myself, "what has changed in the position?" And, finally, I need to try to recignize the opponent's plans and then to play against it if possible.

This coming Friday we will speak about working on these things.

what i learned this summer

2010-08-05T18:06:00.000-07:00

I haven't a clue how other chess players review and learn from their tournament games, but during this week I have been analyzing, annotating, and agonizing over the games I played at the Green Bay Open. I try to go through each game on my own to try to understand better what happened and to try to spot alternatives for both sides. After documenting all of this, I apply a chess engine to some of the positions, usually where some sort of critical position occurs. I consult my opening repertoire and relevant books on the openings played. Occasionally, I really have no idea what is going on and I will consult with a silicon monster to come up with ideas. Because of this weblog I have gotten some very helpful ideas, feedback, and move suggestions from regular readers.

After annotating each game (and my notes are quite lengthy much of the time) I open them all up in Chessbase 10 and also create a new Word document on which to chronicle my observations about the games in terms of patterns, tactics, positional understanding, improvements from previous games, and just about anything that seems useful as a learning aid. This document I sent to Yelena yesterday with a view to reviewing it tomorrow during our lesson. Her reply is that we need to look at what these areas of needed improvement are and how to go about working on them. What follows is an abbreviated version of my self-evaluation from the Green Bay Open.

My opening play with a new repertoire is still in its infancy. I deviated from "book" as early as move five. Some improvement in the passive/defensive tendencies is noted, but this mindset remains. In tense positions, I look first to reduce my opponent's chances before trying to nurture my own. I did a reasonably competent job at tactical situations in the games. My judgement and evaluations of positions is often inaccurate, with the thought that I am doing better than I really am as the dominant tendency. A major difficulty is my discomfort in tense positions and my impulse is to exchange pieces and/or simplify the position so I can understand it. I have some difficulty identifying and responding to significant changes in the position. I can get locked into a rigid mindset and therteby not even consider alternative moves or plans. While I have basic endgame knowledge, I do not play this phase of the game all that well, especially in recognizing necessary ideas and moves as the transition from middlegame to endgame occurs. I do not use the queen and bishops very well. Despite losing my final game of the event, I did manage to outplay a strong Class A player during different parts of the game. Lapses of concentration were far fewer in this tournament than in others. Once I recognize that I have a clear advantage, I can play more effectively and confidently.

This all seems valuable to me, with the caveat that I find methods by which to improve the negatives and to further strengthen the positives.

final shared game

2010-08-01T09:52:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure that any commentary by me is necessary for this game.

I think if I mention that my opponent looked none too happy resigning this game, that's enough. He did end up scoring 1.5/5.0, at least. :)

second shared game

2010-07-29T08:46:00.001-07:00

Again, I've not had time to look this game over closely, but I can't help but feel like I could have won or drawn it - against a 1901 player. I have a couple of comments about two points in the game that will be shared below:

I think I did pretty well until I initiated the exchanges on d5. This is a good example of a weaker player not being able to handle the tension of a position. I also failed to notice the very simple move 19 ...b5, trying to retain the extra pawn. Black should have played 26 ...Bxc3 straight away, and then, later, it was probably better to play 31 ...Rd7. White can then choose to repeat moves by 32. Rc6+ or to play 32. Nc5+ to get the minor pieces off of the board.

first shared game

2010-07-28T14:26:00.000-07:00

Let's begin the sharing of games with the least well-played game of the three I was able to play. It is a rematch with fellow blogger Ivan of "Getting to 2000" fame. I have not yet annotated any of the games from the GBO, but it is clear to me that I reverted to old habits in this contest. I would have to say I lost rather pathetically, but Ivan deserves credit for taking over the game and finishing me off. He was able to avoid any catastrophic blunders in this game, in contrast with our first rated game, in which he overlooked a knight fork of his king and queen.

I totally blanked on the follow-up to this line of the Trompowsky. At some point Black needed to play ...d5 but he refrained from doing so time and time again, fearing the ceding to White of c5 and e5, but the immediate need to block the center overrides this. Greg got stuck in his rigidity.

let's make some lemonade

2010-07-25T18:23:00.000-07:00

Final score of actual games played at the Green Bay Open: +1-2=0

Win against a player rated 720
Loss to a player rated 1828
Loss to a player rated 1901

A very simple summary is as follows: First game was not much of a contest, although I did see some good tactical opportunities and finished off with an attack on his king. Second game saw me revert to old habits of playing too cautiously, second-guessing myself, and reacting to his moves. Credit goes to my opponent. Third game was fine until I blundered in an even endgame and lost. I was probably winning at one point, although I need to analyze this thoroughly this coming week to be sure. Overall, I think I played better than I have in the recent past, but still not good and consistently enough to win or draw with the players a class above me.

Games will follow soon.

getting ready...

2010-07-20T18:28:00.000-07:00

For the past couple of weeks I have been reviewing a good portion of my new opening repertoire with a view to the Green Bay Open this weekend. I am several lights year away from the place I'd like to be with regard to familiarization, but at least I have some ideas and some understanding of what I am trying to do in these openings. Playing online games for practice has only so much value, because most opponents do not know the theory and deviate as early as move three. I have learned some good ways to counter a few "offbeat" variations, and I generally can't complain about the positions I get out of the opening.

Tonight I played the following game at Chesscube.com. I figured it would be a good contest since we have similar ratings. I haven't examined it yet, so I don't have many comments, but one thing I was able to do is to reduce outright blunders considerably. It was my opponent who overlooked things.

Yes, I know I could have played 11 ...b4 and then 12 ...Nxe4 when the knight moves away. And I can't quite understand why I didn't take the b-pawn straight away on move 36. But not so bad overall. I was a little disappointed that instead of resigning, my opponent disconnected from the server, which meant that I had to wait until the remainder of his time ran out before I was awarded the win. Maybe a thunderstorm knocked him off the Internet.

One of my grandsons is likely coming to our home this weekend while I am playing in the event. He's four years old and my wife plans to keep him busy all day until I come home after the day's rounds are over. Maybe I'll be kept so busy that I won't have a chance to get really nervous.