Seedings and First Round Pairings for the State Championship were decided on Sunday. My guess is that the regular season, the league tournament and last year's finish at state were all considered in seeding the teams (combined scores are shown in parentheses), although I cannot help but wonder whether the committee transposed Hoffman Estates and Hoffman Estates (Conant). MSL teams drew the following spots:
7 Barrington (17.5)
21 Palatine (16)
22 Mt Prospect(Prospect) (14)
32 Palatine(Fremd) (14)
42 Hoffman Estates (9)
51 Hoffman Estates(Conant) (13.5)
63 Rolling Meadows (9)
64 Buffalo Grove (10)
76 Elk Grove (2)
108 Schaumburg (2)
If there was a mistake, it simply makes Hoffman's job that much tougher as they play 14th seed Glenbard North in the first round while Conant meets 23rd seed Oak Park-River Forest. Rolling Meadows and Buffalo Grove drew the 96th and 97th seeds respectively while Prospect plays 50th seed Romeoville.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
MSL (3)--Playing the Sicilian
The Sicilian Defense has been at the cutting edge of opening theory at the top levels of grandmaster play for at least the last fifty years. The Najdorf variation of the Sicilian has been called the Cadillac of chess openings and World Champions Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov played it religously. The most dangerous approach for White these days against the Najdorf among the chess elite is a variation known as the English Attack.
Many chess teachers would advise younger players to avoid the Najdorf variation with its myriad complexities. Some would even advise more advanced players like me to avoid it unless we are willing to put in the time and effort to keep up with all the latest nuances from the latest grandmaster tournaments. I have certainly suffered some painful defeats at the hands of an opponent who was well versed in the latest wrinkles. On the other hand, I have also achieved my biggest successes with the Najdorf such as beating Chikwere Onyekwere (the Champion of Nigeria with a rating of 2273) at the US Open last summer. The fact of the matter is that it's fun to play the openings the pros play and fun is what we are in it for.
In the second round of the MSL Tournament, Prospect's first board Peter Dimopoulos lost the Black side of a Najdorf to an English Attack played by Fremd's Diana Yen. In this variation, the players usually castle on opposite sides of the board and launch their pawns at each others' kings with the hope of producing an early checkmate. Black is often faced with a choice between trying to slow down White's attack or ignoring it and trying to get their first with his own. Sometimes it is hard to do both, as Peter learned. Yen v Dimopoulos.
Many chess teachers would advise younger players to avoid the Najdorf variation with its myriad complexities. Some would even advise more advanced players like me to avoid it unless we are willing to put in the time and effort to keep up with all the latest nuances from the latest grandmaster tournaments. I have certainly suffered some painful defeats at the hands of an opponent who was well versed in the latest wrinkles. On the other hand, I have also achieved my biggest successes with the Najdorf such as beating Chikwere Onyekwere (the Champion of Nigeria with a rating of 2273) at the US Open last summer. The fact of the matter is that it's fun to play the openings the pros play and fun is what we are in it for.
In the second round of the MSL Tournament, Prospect's first board Peter Dimopoulos lost the Black side of a Najdorf to an English Attack played by Fremd's Diana Yen. In this variation, the players usually castle on opposite sides of the board and launch their pawns at each others' kings with the hope of producing an early checkmate. Black is often faced with a choice between trying to slow down White's attack or ignoring it and trying to get their first with his own. Sometimes it is hard to do both, as Peter learned. Yen v Dimopoulos.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
MSL (2)--Sometimes a Draw is a Good Thing
It often takes newcomers some time to wrap their minds around the concept that a game of chess can end in a tie. Once they start playing competitively, it often takes even longer to grasp the idea that playing for a draw is the right thing to do in certain situations. This insight usually comes first in games where the player finds himself in such a bad position that his only chance for survival is by making it as hard as possible for his opponent to win. However, it takes a little more experience to recognize another type of situation in which a draw is a proper goal. I am not talking about a player who (wimpily) decides before the first move that a draw is the best he can hope for because his opponent's rating is so high. Rather, I am talking about positions that are evenly balanced in such a way that it is impossible to upset the balance without taking unreasonable risks.
Prospect's second board at the MSL tournament, Andrew Berowski, showed himself to be quick study in these risk-reward calculations. In the second round, he took unreasonable risks in playing for a win against Fremd's Adam Cheng and wound up losing. In the third round, he agreed to a draw with Hoffman Estate's Amy Gill in a position where there was still a fair amount of lumber on the board, but there was no constructive plan available that did not entail substantial risk. Both positions involved bishops of opposite colors (meaning each side has only one bishop that moves on the opposite color square from his opponent's).
In round two, it was Andrew's turn to move with the White pieces in the following position.
Prospect's second board at the MSL tournament, Andrew Berowski, showed himself to be quick study in these risk-reward calculations. In the second round, he took unreasonable risks in playing for a win against Fremd's Adam Cheng and wound up losing. In the third round, he agreed to a draw with Hoffman Estate's Amy Gill in a position where there was still a fair amount of lumber on the board, but there was no constructive plan available that did not entail substantial risk. Both positions involved bishops of opposite colors (meaning each side has only one bishop that moves on the opposite color square from his opponent's).
In round two, it was Andrew's turn to move with the White pieces in the following position.
.jpg)
Andrew is already down a pawn and he can do nothing to defend his pawn on g5. On the other hand, Black cannot capture that pawn without losing his own pawn on e5. White might consider trying to maneuver his bishop over to g8 where it could attack Black's h-pawn, but it would be hard to get past the Black king and the bishop could wind up trapped in the corner. White simply does not have a reasonable way to play for a win.
Black, on the other hand, does have an extra pawn and grabbing White's g-pawn at the cost of his e-pawn would give him an unopposed or "passed" pawn on the h-file. However, in order to advance, this pawn is going to have to cross some light squares, such as h3 which White's bishop can control from c8. Moreover, if White can trade his f-pawn for Black's g-pawn, the bishop can also control the Black pawn's queening square. Black would need to bring his king up to support the h-pawn, but as long as the White king maintains a defensive position, Black will be unable to do so.
Endings with kings, pawns, and bishops of opposite colors are notoriously drawish. Often, a two pawn advantage is not enough to win if the defender's king is active and his bishop is placed where it can both defend its own pawns and block the opponent's. A player trying to hold on in an inferior position should always consider the possibility of trading down to such an ending. HOWEVER, if there are rooks or queens on the board, the player with the better position can sometimes attack on the squares that his opponent's bishop do not cover, so a player who is looking for a draw must be careful when trying to reach the ending.
In the above position, however, Andrew's instincts were to try to win and he was attracted by the prospect of grabbing Black's a-pawn and c-pawn. Being an optimistic soul, Andrew played for a win with 39.Kc5 and ended up losing when Black queened his h-pawn before White could get either of his pawns to the goal line. Berowski v. Cheng.
After contemplating the perils of unseemly aggression over the lunch break, Andrew reached the following position as White in the third round against Amy Gill of Hoffman Estates and a draw was agreed after White's next move.
.jpg)
It may look there are still a lot of pieces on the board, but after the rooks are traded, it is very difficult to come up with a constructive plan for White. Black's bishop is protected by a pawn and is perfectly positioned to protect its own pawns while blocking White's from advancing. On the kingside, Andrew's only active possibility would be advancing his pawns to pry open Amy's kingside, but White's king would be exposed before the pawns got far enough to make life uncomfortable for Black. So for White, a draw is a good outcome.
Black, on the other hand, had more reason to play on. White's bishop does not protect his queenside pawns from a protected square as neatly as White's does. Black would probably be justified in probing about with her queen a bit before agreeing to a draw, although White should be able to prevent anything too bad from happening. On the other hand, Black may have been reluctant to leave her king alone with White's queen lurking about. Berowski v. Gill.
It is not always easy to tell whether playing for a win is fraught with such peril that maintaining the balance is the best course. A player who agrees to a draw never knows what might have happened, while the one who loses by playing on learns a valuable lesson. Nevertheless, the mature chess player always considers how his opponent might respond to whatever plan he chooses. When he determines that any winning attempt will allow his opponent even greater chances to win, he plays to maintain the balance and accepts a draw as the best outcome.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I may not be the best person to give advice on this topic. I often play several tournaments in a row without a single draw, which I think is pretty unusual for players at my level. I think I let my curiosity about what might happen get the best of me. Nevertheless, when I reach a position where I clearly cannot see a way to make progress without allowing my opponent the better chances, I have no qualms about playing for a draw.
MSL Tournament (1)--Many Surpises
On January 27th, the Mid Suburban Leauge played its annual tournament, and the event produced a large number of surprises. Despite finishing the regular season 4-6, Fremd High School went 4-0 to win the MSL Tournament. Second place was taken by regular season co-champion Barrington with 3.5-.5 after getting clipped for a draw by Conant which finished third at 2.5-1.5. Regular season co-champion Palatine as well as third place finisher Prospect went 2-2 to finish in a four-way tie for fourth in the tournament with Buffalo Grove and Rolling Meadows.
Despite the disappointing team result, Prospect's Tejas Shah, Mike Zwolenik and Parth Patel managed to take top honors on boards 3, 5, and 6. In any case, Prospect may have been a little bit cocky after its regular season finish of 8-2. Its wins over Barrington, Fremd, Hoffman Estates, Rolling Meadows, and Buffalo Grove were all close contests that were within a move or two of going the other way. Hopefully, this will make the players work harder at state.
Despite the disappointing team result, Prospect's Tejas Shah, Mike Zwolenik and Parth Patel managed to take top honors on boards 3, 5, and 6. In any case, Prospect may have been a little bit cocky after its regular season finish of 8-2. Its wins over Barrington, Fremd, Hoffman Estates, Rolling Meadows, and Buffalo Grove were all close contests that were within a move or two of going the other way. Hopefully, this will make the players work harder at state.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Analyzing Students' Games
My big coaching innovation this year was to have the players use score sheets with carbons at their Thursday afternoon matches so that I could take a copy to analyze over the weekend. With the help of ChessBase and Fritz, I would run through the games and try to come up with some helpful comments which I would print out and give to players on the following Tuesday. This seemed to be a useful tool for several reasons, not the least of which is that I no longer had to worry about players losing their score sheets .
The best thing about writing up my analysis is that it gives me a chance to provide every player some feedback. Some players are always eager to ask me a question or to play a game. Others never want to. These tend to be the “natural” players who have never looked at a book and don’t know (and don’t particularly want to know) whether they are playing the Scotch, the Dutch or the French. I think they are somewhat self-conscious about having their play scrutinized. Often these players have very respectable tactical skills that are hampered by some bad habits. By writing up my analysis, I can point out some basic principles like development and central control that can give them the chance to reach a position where they can put their natural talents to work.
When writing up comments, I always try to focus on principles that I think the game illustrates well. If I sit down with a player to go over a game that I have not seen before, I am usually tempted to comment on every move (especially when many of them are poor). However, many of the poor moves never lead to any problems so pointing them out probably makes little impression. If a player fails to get his king to safety, but his opponent never exploits it, the player is unlikely to appreciate the risk he was taking. Even worse are those bad moves that end up working out well. For example, I might chastise a player for moving a knight repeatedly in the opening only to find that the knight ended up capturing a rook or a queen when the opponent overlooked a simple fork. By focusing only on those errors that really influenced the course the game took, I hope I can offer some insights that the player might actually recall and apply the next time out.
By and large, I try to accept a player’s idiosyncrasies insofar as reasonably possible. For example, some players have an irrational affection for knights and will swap their bishops for their opponent’s knights at the first opportunity. I could point out (and probably will) why the bishop is considered the superior piece in the endgame, but their games are usually decided long before the ending is reached. Moreover, when they do reach an ending, they are usually in such time trouble that the likelihood of overlooking a fork makes the knight a very powerful piece. Under a minute, I think a knight is often as strong as a rook. So I accept their predilection for the horse, and I talk about things like keeping the position closed and creating outposts for the knights, and I suggest waiting for their opponent to spend a tempo on the a-pawn or h-pawn before swapping the bishop for knight.
On the other hand, some players like to invent their own openings and these are usually quite dubious. They may get away with them on the lower boards, but sooner or later they are going to get punished. I try not to be too harsh, but as a wise man once told me, “if there were gold in those moves, someone would have mined it already.”
The possibility of efficiently communicating some opening theory is one of the things I like about my approach. Teachers often advise students to use an opening encyclopedia like Modern Chess Openings (MCO) or Nunn’s Chess Openings (NCO) to determine where their games diverged from the “book” lines. While this is clearly a good practice, it can be frustrating as well. MCO and NCO often don’t deal with the move the student played and he will be left wondering why his move is considered inferior to the book move. I can let them know whether their move was tactically flawed, whether it violates some positional principle, or whether it is simply less fashionable than the book move.
As tempting as it is to take credit for every suggestion I make, I try to be reasonably honest about my use of Fritz. If there is a tactic that I think I would have had a decent chance of finding myself at the same time control, I probably won't mention Fritz’s contribution. On the other hand, sometimes Fritz points out a tactic that I would not have seen if I had stared at the position for days. Then I have to be honest in admitting that I did not find it. Moreover, I try to be honest with the students about what tactics I think they could reasonably be expected to find in G60.
Naturally I cannot force the players to go over my analysis and it is clear from repeated blunders that some do not. However, most of the players do go over the games including some who never seem to be interested in discussing their games individually. Moreover, some who ignored my analysis at first eventually started looking at it as the season went on. In any case, by posting my analysis here, it is available to potential opponents and the players who insist upon repeating the same mistakes will do so at their peril.
The best thing about writing up my analysis is that it gives me a chance to provide every player some feedback. Some players are always eager to ask me a question or to play a game. Others never want to. These tend to be the “natural” players who have never looked at a book and don’t know (and don’t particularly want to know) whether they are playing the Scotch, the Dutch or the French. I think they are somewhat self-conscious about having their play scrutinized. Often these players have very respectable tactical skills that are hampered by some bad habits. By writing up my analysis, I can point out some basic principles like development and central control that can give them the chance to reach a position where they can put their natural talents to work.
When writing up comments, I always try to focus on principles that I think the game illustrates well. If I sit down with a player to go over a game that I have not seen before, I am usually tempted to comment on every move (especially when many of them are poor). However, many of the poor moves never lead to any problems so pointing them out probably makes little impression. If a player fails to get his king to safety, but his opponent never exploits it, the player is unlikely to appreciate the risk he was taking. Even worse are those bad moves that end up working out well. For example, I might chastise a player for moving a knight repeatedly in the opening only to find that the knight ended up capturing a rook or a queen when the opponent overlooked a simple fork. By focusing only on those errors that really influenced the course the game took, I hope I can offer some insights that the player might actually recall and apply the next time out.
By and large, I try to accept a player’s idiosyncrasies insofar as reasonably possible. For example, some players have an irrational affection for knights and will swap their bishops for their opponent’s knights at the first opportunity. I could point out (and probably will) why the bishop is considered the superior piece in the endgame, but their games are usually decided long before the ending is reached. Moreover, when they do reach an ending, they are usually in such time trouble that the likelihood of overlooking a fork makes the knight a very powerful piece. Under a minute, I think a knight is often as strong as a rook. So I accept their predilection for the horse, and I talk about things like keeping the position closed and creating outposts for the knights, and I suggest waiting for their opponent to spend a tempo on the a-pawn or h-pawn before swapping the bishop for knight.
On the other hand, some players like to invent their own openings and these are usually quite dubious. They may get away with them on the lower boards, but sooner or later they are going to get punished. I try not to be too harsh, but as a wise man once told me, “if there were gold in those moves, someone would have mined it already.”
The possibility of efficiently communicating some opening theory is one of the things I like about my approach. Teachers often advise students to use an opening encyclopedia like Modern Chess Openings (MCO) or Nunn’s Chess Openings (NCO) to determine where their games diverged from the “book” lines. While this is clearly a good practice, it can be frustrating as well. MCO and NCO often don’t deal with the move the student played and he will be left wondering why his move is considered inferior to the book move. I can let them know whether their move was tactically flawed, whether it violates some positional principle, or whether it is simply less fashionable than the book move.
As tempting as it is to take credit for every suggestion I make, I try to be reasonably honest about my use of Fritz. If there is a tactic that I think I would have had a decent chance of finding myself at the same time control, I probably won't mention Fritz’s contribution. On the other hand, sometimes Fritz points out a tactic that I would not have seen if I had stared at the position for days. Then I have to be honest in admitting that I did not find it. Moreover, I try to be honest with the students about what tactics I think they could reasonably be expected to find in G60.
Naturally I cannot force the players to go over my analysis and it is clear from repeated blunders that some do not. However, most of the players do go over the games including some who never seem to be interested in discussing their games individually. Moreover, some who ignored my analysis at first eventually started looking at it as the season went on. In any case, by posting my analysis here, it is available to potential opponents and the players who insist upon repeating the same mistakes will do so at their peril.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Prospect v. Schaumburg
This is only Schaumburg's second year in the Mid Suburban Leauge. Against the current teams in the league (Hersey dropped out this year after a single season), Schaumburg was blanked in every match last year but for a single draw on eighth board against Fremd for a grand total of 2.5 points all season. This year, they scored 152 points against the same schools and managed to win two matches. Prospect beat Schaumburg 66.5-2.5, but that score belies Schaumburg's improved play. 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 5th Board; 6th Board; 7th Board.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Prospect v. Elk Grove
I think that many high school players show up for chess club just because it seems to be a pleasant way to kill an afternoon. They know how the pieces move and they enjoy playing, but they are not really interested in delving into the subtler aspects of the game. On the stronger teams, such players fill in the lower boards. On others, they may make up most of the team.
I wish to say that I am a firm believer that all chess is good chess. If a player has no interest in learning chess theory and just wants to move the pieces, I will cast no stones. As my wife will tell you, I spend entirely too much time trying to master this silly game. I am happy to see players like Zach Kasiurak and Rishi Sethi of Barrington who share my addiction to the point where they have worked to become strong players, but I am happy to see players enjoy the game at whatever level brings them pleasure.
Moreover, it is not as far from playing purely for pleasure to being a solidly competitive team. Many anti-theory types have played enough chess to develop very respectable tactical skills. It only takes a couple of players getting interested in aquiring a little knowledge to infect a whole team. Prospect went from 0-10 to 5-6 to 8-2 mostly because one player got the bug and some newer players took their cue from him.
Elk Grove is a school that is still looking for that spark. Poor opening play put them so far in the hole that they never got the chance to demonstrate their tactical skills. Six of their boards never castled, and they all paid the price for it. One player castled when his king was already under attack and castling brought no relief. The only player who brought his king to safety by castling won his game. Here are some games from Prospect's 62-6 victory over Elk Grove: 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board; 6th Board; 7th Board.
I wish to say that I am a firm believer that all chess is good chess. If a player has no interest in learning chess theory and just wants to move the pieces, I will cast no stones. As my wife will tell you, I spend entirely too much time trying to master this silly game. I am happy to see players like Zach Kasiurak and Rishi Sethi of Barrington who share my addiction to the point where they have worked to become strong players, but I am happy to see players enjoy the game at whatever level brings them pleasure.
Moreover, it is not as far from playing purely for pleasure to being a solidly competitive team. Many anti-theory types have played enough chess to develop very respectable tactical skills. It only takes a couple of players getting interested in aquiring a little knowledge to infect a whole team. Prospect went from 0-10 to 5-6 to 8-2 mostly because one player got the bug and some newer players took their cue from him.
Elk Grove is a school that is still looking for that spark. Poor opening play put them so far in the hole that they never got the chance to demonstrate their tactical skills. Six of their boards never castled, and they all paid the price for it. One player castled when his king was already under attack and castling brought no relief. The only player who brought his king to safety by castling won his game. Here are some games from Prospect's 62-6 victory over Elk Grove: 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board; 6th Board; 7th Board.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Propsect v. Wheeling
Wheeling seems to be one of those teams whose players would rather play chess than study chess (which is probably much healthier than my obsession with the game). My general impression is that their tactical skills are not much worse than Prospect's. Nevertheless, Prospect won the match 62-6 because Wheeling's players did not pay attention to basic opening principles like development, control of the center, and king safety. They found some good moves in the middlegame, but, unfortunately, their positions were already under intense pressure by then. If they put a some time into a book like Discovering Chess Openings by Emms, I think they could be very dangerous. Another good resource is Dan Heisman's article, Opening Principles, from ChessCafe.com. Here are some of the games from the November match: 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board; 6th Board.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Prospect v. Conant
In its last match of the season, Prospect lost to Conant 38-30, thereby finishing with a 8-2 record. For the first time all year, Andrew Berowski, Tejas Shah, and Parth Patel all went down to defeat in the same match. Moreover, they all lost on pretty simple tactical oversights that left them with no chance to salvage the game. Perhaps they had gotten overconfident, but hopefully they have learned that they cannot take any moves for granted.
I missed the Conant match because I was in Madison visiting my son at the University of Wisconsin, and my biggest regret was not seeing how excited the Conant players were about winning. In the five years I have been helping out at Prospect, this is the first time anyone has been excited about beating Prospect. Two years ago, the team was 0-10 and a win over Prospect was about as exciting as Grant Hill beating that little fat kid at basketball in the Sprite commercial a few years ago.
Unfortunately, being unable to watch the games made it difficult for me to decipher some of the scoresheets. Here are upper boards: 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board.
I missed the Conant match because I was in Madison visiting my son at the University of Wisconsin, and my biggest regret was not seeing how excited the Conant players were about winning. In the five years I have been helping out at Prospect, this is the first time anyone has been excited about beating Prospect. Two years ago, the team was 0-10 and a win over Prospect was about as exciting as Grant Hill beating that little fat kid at basketball in the Sprite commercial a few years ago.
Unfortunately, being unable to watch the games made it difficult for me to decipher some of the scoresheets. Here are upper boards: 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Prospect v. Hoffman Estates
Although posting our match results here will help all the teams in the league scout each other, Don Barrett (Prospect High School's faculty chess coach) pointed out that it will make Prospect the easiest team to scout. I pointed out to him that as a volunteer coach, my loyalty is to the game itself rather than Prospect's chess team in particular. Should Prospect care to pay me, I might concern myself with its competitive advantage. Otherwise, I would rather post my analysis in the hopes of generating chess interest throughout the league.
In fact, Don likes the idea of posting the games and I am optimistic that it will not significantly impair Prospect's chances. The worst case would be that a Prospect player (or any other for that matter) repeats a dubious opening variation and his opponent is ready to take advantage of it. Since I think that I have done a decent job pointing out poor opening play, that would mean that the player failed to learn from history and suffered the natural consequences thereof. My idea of the best case is a player becoming familiar with the basic traps and typical piece and pawn deployments of a new opening after seeing that a potential opponent plays it. (An excellent book for these purposes is "Understanding the Chess Openings" by Sam Collins reviewed at ChessCafe.com.) Then both players get a better position out of the opening and play a more interesting game.
Here are the games from the October Prospect-Hoffman Estates match that Prospect won 39.5-28.5: 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board; 6th Board; 7th Board; 8th Board.
In fact, Don likes the idea of posting the games and I am optimistic that it will not significantly impair Prospect's chances. The worst case would be that a Prospect player (or any other for that matter) repeats a dubious opening variation and his opponent is ready to take advantage of it. Since I think that I have done a decent job pointing out poor opening play, that would mean that the player failed to learn from history and suffered the natural consequences thereof. My idea of the best case is a player becoming familiar with the basic traps and typical piece and pawn deployments of a new opening after seeing that a potential opponent plays it. (An excellent book for these purposes is "Understanding the Chess Openings" by Sam Collins reviewed at ChessCafe.com.) Then both players get a better position out of the opening and play a more interesting game.
Here are the games from the October Prospect-Hoffman Estates match that Prospect won 39.5-28.5: 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board; 6th Board; 7th Board; 8th Board.
Prospect v. Buffalo Grove
Prospect beat Buffalo Grove in December by 42-26. 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board; 6th Board; 7th Board; 8th Board.
I hope that none of the players will take offense at the bluntness of any of my comments. As my analysis was prepared based on my familiarity with the Prospect players, I may have sugar-coated my comments on their blunders in order to be encouraging while being more frank about their opponents' errors, particularly if the error was of a type that the Prospect player is himself prone to make. I apologize for any offense I may have given. Moreover, I can assure every player that for every bad move I point out in any of these games, I could find an equally bad move that I have made in one of my games (although I probably don't make as many of them in the same game).
I hope that none of the players will take offense at the bluntness of any of my comments. As my analysis was prepared based on my familiarity with the Prospect players, I may have sugar-coated my comments on their blunders in order to be encouraging while being more frank about their opponents' errors, particularly if the error was of a type that the Prospect player is himself prone to make. I apologize for any offense I may have given. Moreover, I can assure every player that for every bad move I point out in any of these games, I could find an equally bad move that I have made in one of my games (although I probably don't make as many of them in the same game).
Monday, January 8, 2007
Prospect v. Palatine
Now that I have figured out how to use ChessBase to create web pages with playable games, I am going to try to post some of the games from Prospect's matches this year along with my analysis. I expect these to be of interest mostly to players and coaches in the Mid Suburban Leauge, but I would be happy for any feedback from other coaches who have worked with players at a similar level. Some of the games from the match that Prospect lost to Palatine by a score of 43.5-24.5 last October are posted here: 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 4th Board; 5th Board; 6th Board.
Staying at 2000
The title of today’s post is an homage to Ivan Wijetunge’s “Getting to 2000” blog in which he chronicles his ambitious goal of increasing his rating from 1800 to 2000 between June 2006 and the February 2007 rating supplement. As it was nine years from when I first cleared 1800 in 1997 to when I hit 2000 in September of 2006, I thought his schedule was rather optimistic.
I put my Expert rating on the line for the first time last weekend at the Tim Just Winter Open. My chess activity for the last four months has pretty much been limited to coaching and the rust showed in the first round when I lost to 1865 rated Mikhail Korenman. Mikhail is running for the USCF Executive Board and I guess he knows one vote that he won’t be getting. In the second round, I was fortunate enough to meet a player who was even rustier than me. Steven Napoli had not played since last year's Winter Open, and I managed to whip up a mating attack against his 1.b3.
I came closest to losing my expert rating against the third highest rated nine year old in the country, 1903 rated Alexander Velikanov. I went pawn hunting with my queen and ended up losing a piece for two pawns. Luckily, Alexander missed a chance to get the queens off the board and I managed to bamboozle him in time pressure to recover the piece and reach a winning rook and pawn ending. (The game is posted here.) That leaves eleven year old Zhe Quan as the youngest player to beat me. I played a bit better on the second day with a draw with 1958 Daniel McNally and a win over 1800 Aakaash Meduri.
Ivan did not reach his goal within the time limit he set for himself, but I hope he will keep on trying. I had been bouncing around the upper 1900’s for three years before I was able to string together five decent tournaments in a row to reach the goal I had set many years earlier. I hope I can hold Expert for awhile. At the ripe old age of forty-nine, it is hard for me to believe that Master is a realistic goal, but you never know.
I put my Expert rating on the line for the first time last weekend at the Tim Just Winter Open. My chess activity for the last four months has pretty much been limited to coaching and the rust showed in the first round when I lost to 1865 rated Mikhail Korenman. Mikhail is running for the USCF Executive Board and I guess he knows one vote that he won’t be getting. In the second round, I was fortunate enough to meet a player who was even rustier than me. Steven Napoli had not played since last year's Winter Open, and I managed to whip up a mating attack against his 1.b3.
I came closest to losing my expert rating against the third highest rated nine year old in the country, 1903 rated Alexander Velikanov. I went pawn hunting with my queen and ended up losing a piece for two pawns. Luckily, Alexander missed a chance to get the queens off the board and I managed to bamboozle him in time pressure to recover the piece and reach a winning rook and pawn ending. (The game is posted here.) That leaves eleven year old Zhe Quan as the youngest player to beat me. I played a bit better on the second day with a draw with 1958 Daniel McNally and a win over 1800 Aakaash Meduri.
Ivan did not reach his goal within the time limit he set for himself, but I hope he will keep on trying. I had been bouncing around the upper 1900’s for three years before I was able to string together five decent tournaments in a row to reach the goal I had set many years earlier. I hope I can hold Expert for awhile. At the ripe old age of forty-nine, it is hard for me to believe that Master is a realistic goal, but you never know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
