English Grandmaster John Nunn frequently writes about a princple that he refers to as LPDO which stands for "loose pieces drop off." The idea is that even among strong players, all the opening theory and middle game strategy often comes to nought as the game is decided when an undefended piece falls victim to a tactic. If players learn early on to be circumspect about leaving loose pieces on the board, they would find their results improving more rapidly.
Prospect's 1st Board Peter Dimopolous and 3rd Board Tejas Shah both played the Queen's Gambit as white and Buffalo Grove's Yuriy Nartov and Nedium Bajramovic both accepted. Peter and Tejas both wound up with a loose bishop on c4 which came under attack from a knight on e5. It is there that the similarity ends. Peter responded to the attack by moving his bishop to safety while Tejas opted for a tactical response that involved planting a loose bishop on f4. Can you guess who won their game and who lost their game?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Prospect v. Buffalo Grove (3): An Interesting Endgame
I think the most impressive game of the match was played by Buffalo Grove's freshman Andrey Puzanov on 5th Board against Prospect's Mike Zwolenik. After a fairly uneventful opening and middle game, the players reached a double rook ending where Andrey was up a pawn. Rook endings have a tendency to be drawish in part because rooks are wonderful attackers but somewhat clumsy defenders. Moreover they don't seem nearly as adept as knights, bishops and queens at simultaneously attacking and defending. They often are forced to choose one or the other. What frequently happens is one player starts attacking his opponent's pawns while leaving his own pawns undefended. The result is both players left with nothing but a king and a rook.
Andrey did a terrific job of maneuvering his rooks patiently while waiting for the right moment to attack. Mike defended well, but a subtle mistake gave Andrey the opportunity to go on the attack at a point when Mike was not quite ready to do so thereby allowing Andrey to briefly go ahead by two paws. While Andrey could not maintain the second pawn, Mike was forced to allow the exchange of rooks. In the resulting king and pawn ending, Andrey played very precisely to win the full point.
Andrey did a terrific job of maneuvering his rooks patiently while waiting for the right moment to attack. Mike defended well, but a subtle mistake gave Andrey the opportunity to go on the attack at a point when Mike was not quite ready to do so thereby allowing Andrey to briefly go ahead by two paws. While Andrey could not maintain the second pawn, Mike was forced to allow the exchange of rooks. In the resulting king and pawn ending, Andrey played very precisely to win the full point.
Prospect v. Buffalo Grove (2): Winning a Won Game
Sometimes when your opponent makes a mistake that allows you to gain a material advantage, his position falls apart completely and the game is easily won. On other occasions, you may need to use a couple of moves to pick up the material while your opponent winds up with some compensation for the deficit in terms of space or development. On such occasions, it is vitally important to recognize the weakness you have incurred. You must work to consolidate your advantage rather than expecting the position to win itself.
On 2nd Board, Prospect's Andrew Berowski was confronted with the offbeat Polish Opening from George Karavaev. Andrew kept his wits about him and reacted reasonably and spotted the opportunity to win some material with a knight foray. However, Andrew did not take into account the weaknesses that had been created in his own position and unexpectedly found his opponent's pieces occupying the kind of painful positions in his rearward areas that usually require the attention of a medical specialist.
On 6th Board, Prospect's Parth Patel got the opportunity to play the legendary Fried Liver Attack (which is discussed more thoroughly in Patel v. Barjamovic) against Max Gorbunov. Max found himself down two pawns and deprived of the right to castle at an early stage of the game. However, Parth did not realize how badly he had neglected his development in order to accrue these advantages. By virtue of careful defense, Max neutralized Parth's advantages and gained the upper hand. However, an unfortunate blunder late in the game gave the point to Parth.
On 2nd Board, Prospect's Andrew Berowski was confronted with the offbeat Polish Opening from George Karavaev. Andrew kept his wits about him and reacted reasonably and spotted the opportunity to win some material with a knight foray. However, Andrew did not take into account the weaknesses that had been created in his own position and unexpectedly found his opponent's pieces occupying the kind of painful positions in his rearward areas that usually require the attention of a medical specialist.
On 6th Board, Prospect's Parth Patel got the opportunity to play the legendary Fried Liver Attack (which is discussed more thoroughly in Patel v. Barjamovic) against Max Gorbunov. Max found himself down two pawns and deprived of the right to castle at an early stage of the game. However, Parth did not realize how badly he had neglected his development in order to accrue these advantages. By virtue of careful defense, Max neutralized Parth's advantages and gained the upper hand. However, an unfortunate blunder late in the game gave the point to Parth.
Prospect v. Buffalo Grove (1): How to Offer a Draw
On October 18, Buffalo Grove beat Prospect 43-25 in a match that featured several well fought games. As I am not going away this weekend and Prospect has a bye next week due to Wheeling's inability to field a team in the MSL this year, I am looking forward to going over the games a bit more thoroughly than I have been able to do for the earlier matches. However, a couple of questions about the rules arose during the match (without fisticuffs thankfully) that players need to be familiar with.
THE PROPER WAY TO OFFER A DRAW
If you want to know whether your opponent would be happy to split the point, the proper way to do so is to make your move on the board, say "I offer a draw," and then proceed to press the clock. A draw offer made prior to making your move is considered illegal and a draw offer made while your opponent's clock is running is considered illegal. The penalty for a illegal draw offer is two minutes added to your opponent's time. Your opponent may decline your draw offer either by saying so or by making a move on the board. Draw offers may not be withdrawn prior to being accepted or declined.
It is important to note that AN ILLEGAL DRAW OFFER CAN STILL BE ACCEPTED! Moreover, if your opponent offers you a draw while it is his move, you can ask him to make his move on the board before you decide whether to accept. You are free to wait to see whether he comes up with a good move or a blunder before accepting or declining. He cannot withdraw his offer before you decide.
THE PROPER WAY TO CLAIM A DRAW BY THREEFOLD REPETITION
Either player may claim a draw if the same position appears on the board three times with the same player to move, but the procedure is different depending on whether it is the claimant's move that causes the repetition or his opponent's although he must have a complete scoresheet to prove the claim in either case. If your opponent makes a move that causes the repetition, you stop the clock and claim a draw. If your opponent does not acknowledge the claim, call a steward who will verify the claim from the sheet. If it your move that will produce the repetition, DO NOT MAKE THE MOVE ON THE BOARD. Write the move on the scoresheet, stop the clocks and claim the draw. After the move is made on the board, the moving party can no longer claim the draw.
The situation arose on 7th Board where Prospect's Dhruvin Talati initially outplayed Buffalo Grove's Ryan McGogagle to gain an advantage of two pieces. Dhruvin then reverted to his habit of playing much too quickly and proceeded to give back the pieces on two consecutive moves. The game reached a rook and pawn ending in which Ryan held the advantage. However, perhaps as a result of his earlier difficulties, he offered Dhruvin a draw which was declined. At one point, Ryan delivered some sixteen checks in a row during which the same position was repeated many times. However, while Ryan offered a draw, he never claimed a draw. Eventually, Ryan simplified to a king and pawn ending in which he was still winning, but apparently having determined that a draw was the best he could hope for, he played too defensively and allowed Dhruvin to turn the tables.
IS IT LEGAL TO TELL YOUR OPPONENT TO START HIS CLOCK?
Chatting after the match, Mr. Barrett correctly pointed out that it is illegal for anyone to tell a player to press his clock. Thus, the Buffalo Grove player who courteously pointed out that his opponent had forgotten to push his clock was actually violating the rules and could have incurred a penalty. When we checked the rules, however, we discovered that the player who has been told to press his clock is also subject to a penalty so the Buffalo Grove player did not stand to lose anything by being polite.
While there is very little difference between how the game of chess is played under IHSA and USCF rules, I have noticed that the IHSA tends to provide a specific penalty for many infractions (e.g., inproperly offering a draw) where the USCF leaves the question of a penalty of to the discretion of the tournament director. At first, this struck me as nitpicky, but I think there is some logic to it. At a USCF tournament, the penalty decision is vested in a director who is likely an experienced tournament player himself and who has no vested interest in the outcome of the game. On the other hand, at an IHSA match, the decision may well be vested in a faculty sponsor for one of the teams who may have little no playing experience. By spelling out the penalties explicit, the IHSA reduces the opportunities for second guessing.
THE PROPER WAY TO OFFER A DRAW
If you want to know whether your opponent would be happy to split the point, the proper way to do so is to make your move on the board, say "I offer a draw," and then proceed to press the clock. A draw offer made prior to making your move is considered illegal and a draw offer made while your opponent's clock is running is considered illegal. The penalty for a illegal draw offer is two minutes added to your opponent's time. Your opponent may decline your draw offer either by saying so or by making a move on the board. Draw offers may not be withdrawn prior to being accepted or declined.
It is important to note that AN ILLEGAL DRAW OFFER CAN STILL BE ACCEPTED! Moreover, if your opponent offers you a draw while it is his move, you can ask him to make his move on the board before you decide whether to accept. You are free to wait to see whether he comes up with a good move or a blunder before accepting or declining. He cannot withdraw his offer before you decide.
THE PROPER WAY TO CLAIM A DRAW BY THREEFOLD REPETITION
Either player may claim a draw if the same position appears on the board three times with the same player to move, but the procedure is different depending on whether it is the claimant's move that causes the repetition or his opponent's although he must have a complete scoresheet to prove the claim in either case. If your opponent makes a move that causes the repetition, you stop the clock and claim a draw. If your opponent does not acknowledge the claim, call a steward who will verify the claim from the sheet. If it your move that will produce the repetition, DO NOT MAKE THE MOVE ON THE BOARD. Write the move on the scoresheet, stop the clocks and claim the draw. After the move is made on the board, the moving party can no longer claim the draw.
The situation arose on 7th Board where Prospect's Dhruvin Talati initially outplayed Buffalo Grove's Ryan McGogagle to gain an advantage of two pieces. Dhruvin then reverted to his habit of playing much too quickly and proceeded to give back the pieces on two consecutive moves. The game reached a rook and pawn ending in which Ryan held the advantage. However, perhaps as a result of his earlier difficulties, he offered Dhruvin a draw which was declined. At one point, Ryan delivered some sixteen checks in a row during which the same position was repeated many times. However, while Ryan offered a draw, he never claimed a draw. Eventually, Ryan simplified to a king and pawn ending in which he was still winning, but apparently having determined that a draw was the best he could hope for, he played too defensively and allowed Dhruvin to turn the tables.
IS IT LEGAL TO TELL YOUR OPPONENT TO START HIS CLOCK?
Chatting after the match, Mr. Barrett correctly pointed out that it is illegal for anyone to tell a player to press his clock. Thus, the Buffalo Grove player who courteously pointed out that his opponent had forgotten to push his clock was actually violating the rules and could have incurred a penalty. When we checked the rules, however, we discovered that the player who has been told to press his clock is also subject to a penalty so the Buffalo Grove player did not stand to lose anything by being polite.
While there is very little difference between how the game of chess is played under IHSA and USCF rules, I have noticed that the IHSA tends to provide a specific penalty for many infractions (e.g., inproperly offering a draw) where the USCF leaves the question of a penalty of to the discretion of the tournament director. At first, this struck me as nitpicky, but I think there is some logic to it. At a USCF tournament, the penalty decision is vested in a director who is likely an experienced tournament player himself and who has no vested interest in the outcome of the game. On the other hand, at an IHSA match, the decision may well be vested in a faculty sponsor for one of the teams who may have little no playing experience. By spelling out the penalties explicit, the IHSA reduces the opportunities for second guessing.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Prospect v. Conant (3): Evaluation
In an earlier post, I speculated that Conant's 1st Board, David Lasocki may have felt overly confident after Peter Dimopoulos gave up a bishop for two pawns. I suspect that I may have been projecting my own feelings onto David because my initial impression was that Peter was in some trouble. In a comment to that post, David informed me that, in fact, he was quite unhappy with his position. It turns out that he appreciated the position better than I did.
It is important to remember that the player at the board usually knows more about the position than the casual observer even when the casual observer has a higher rating. This does not mean that the observer might not see some points that the player overlooks. Sometimes these are simple tactics because that is the first thing the casual observer looks for while the player often gets so engrossed in thinking several moves ahead that he may forget to look at one move possibilities. Nevertheless, the player is the one putting the most effort into the position and he should never blindly accept anyone else's opinion.
David suggests "that a good lesson would be how to accurately assess a position as losing and winning." I absolutely agree. I am just not sure I am qualified to teach one. In fact the more I have looked at his game on 1st Board against Peter Dimopoulos, the more complicated it looks to me. My current thinking (which is subject to revision), is that the momemtum shifted both earlier than I thought when I first reviewed the game and earlier than I thought while watching.
This is the position after Black's 29...Ke6.
Black played the very natural looking 30.c4, which I now think may be the losing move. The problem is that it immobilizes White's queenside pawns and leaves him unable to create a passed pawn. It also leaves an entry point for the Black king to penetrate. On the other hand, after 30.Nf4+Ke5 31.Kg2 Bxg3 32.fxg3, things look much different.
It is important to remember that the player at the board usually knows more about the position than the casual observer even when the casual observer has a higher rating. This does not mean that the observer might not see some points that the player overlooks. Sometimes these are simple tactics because that is the first thing the casual observer looks for while the player often gets so engrossed in thinking several moves ahead that he may forget to look at one move possibilities. Nevertheless, the player is the one putting the most effort into the position and he should never blindly accept anyone else's opinion.
David suggests "that a good lesson would be how to accurately assess a position as losing and winning." I absolutely agree. I am just not sure I am qualified to teach one. In fact the more I have looked at his game on 1st Board against Peter Dimopoulos, the more complicated it looks to me. My current thinking (which is subject to revision), is that the momemtum shifted both earlier than I thought when I first reviewed the game and earlier than I thought while watching.
This is the position after Black's 29...Ke6.
Black played the very natural looking 30.c4, which I now think may be the losing move. The problem is that it immobilizes White's queenside pawns and leaves him unable to create a passed pawn. It also leaves an entry point for the Black king to penetrate. On the other hand, after 30.Nf4+Ke5 31.Kg2 Bxg3 32.fxg3, things look much different.
One of many possible continuations might be 32...g5 33.Nh5 f4 34.gxf4+ gxf4 35.a5 a6.
Now, if the Black king goes to f5, White has the threat of b4-b5 creating a passed a-pawn. On the other hand, if Black plays ...e3 or ...f3, White blockades the pawns with Kf3 or Ke3 when Black has too many weak pawns to protect.
I fear this was a position for which no general rules of evaluation exist. Unless you have analyzed something like it before, it may be impossible to know where to start when encountering it for the first time over the board. Still, I guess that is what makes the game of chess so fascinating.
Prospect v. Conant (2): Development
The three major goals of the opening are:
(1) Activating your forces, i.e., development;
(2) Controling the center;
(3) Getting the king to safety, usually by castling quickly.
For more information, see Opening Principles by NM Dan Heisman. The difference in the Prospect-Conant match was primarily the failure of Conant's lower boards to get their pieces activated. In effect, they were fighting with one hand tight behind their back.
For the lower boards, the best way to think about development may be this: The more pieces you have out, the more likely it is that your opponent will overlook one of the threats they pose. On 5th Board, Conant's Chris Ford got in trouble when he sent his knight out without any support allowing Prospect's Mike Zwolenik to concentrate his forces to trap it. On 6th Board, Prospect's Parth Patel used his knights and queen to create multiple threats that overwhelmed Conant's Sai Vagvala. On 7th Board , Dhruvin Tarlati distracted Eric Poczatek with an advanced knight while his bishop and queen combined for the knockout blow. On 8th Board, Conant's Conant's Vlad Petrovic, tried to overwhelm his opponent with his queen alone while Prospect's Mike Busby developed all his forces to take control of the game.
(1) Activating your forces, i.e., development;
(2) Controling the center;
(3) Getting the king to safety, usually by castling quickly.
For more information, see Opening Principles by NM Dan Heisman. The difference in the Prospect-Conant match was primarily the failure of Conant's lower boards to get their pieces activated. In effect, they were fighting with one hand tight behind their back.
For the lower boards, the best way to think about development may be this: The more pieces you have out, the more likely it is that your opponent will overlook one of the threats they pose. On 5th Board, Conant's Chris Ford got in trouble when he sent his knight out without any support allowing Prospect's Mike Zwolenik to concentrate his forces to trap it. On 6th Board, Prospect's Parth Patel used his knights and queen to create multiple threats that overwhelmed Conant's Sai Vagvala. On 7th Board , Dhruvin Tarlati distracted Eric Poczatek with an advanced knight while his bishop and queen combined for the knockout blow. On 8th Board, Conant's Conant's Vlad Petrovic, tried to overwhelm his opponent with his queen alone while Prospect's Mike Busby developed all his forces to take control of the game.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Prospect v. Conant (1): Teachable Moments
Prospect beat Conant today by a score of 47-21. The teams played evenly on the top four boards with Prospect taking 1st and 4th and Conant taking 2nd and 3rd. However, Prospect swept 5th-8th boards for a comfortable win in the match. The top four boards were all close games in which the winners had to work hard to bring home the full point. Two of the wins could easily have been losses and the other two could easily have been draws.
From a coaching standpoint, there were lots of teachable moments:
(1) Don't underestimate your opponent's counterplay just because he dropped a piece. On 1st Board and 2nd Board, the Conant players were each up a piece against the Prospect players. in both cases, however, the Conant players had to weaken their positions in order to gain the material advantage. On 1st Board, Peter Dimopoulos was able to exploit the weaknesses in John Lasocki's position to win the game and Andrew Berowski had very good drawing chances against Greg Ruffing. On both boards, it seemed that the Conant players underestimated the weaknesses they had incurred.
(2) Don't let your opponent's time trouble change the way you play your game. On 2nd Board and 4th Board, the Conant players were in time trouble. Prospect's Kevin Kostka made the mistake of playing quickly in the hopes that John Calash would run out of time, but with less than ten seconds on his clock, John did a terrific job of creating problems for Kevin although Kevin held on to win. On 2nd Board, Conant's Greg Ruffing turned over scorekeeping duties to a teammate when his clock went below five minutes and Andrew Berowski did so as well even though he still had twenty minutes. It is just speculation, but I cannot help but wonder whether Andrew might have seen the threat that cost him the game if he had been forced to take an extra moment thinking about his opponent's move while writing it down.
(3) In an ending where both sides have bishops and pawns and the bishops travel on the same color squares, the pawns belong on the squares of the opposite colors. Conant's Joseph Man played such an ending very nicely against Tejas Shah to bring home the full point on 3rd Board.
(4) No matter how much you like to play the Sicilian Dragon, there are times when you are better off playing ...e6 and ...Be7 rather than ...g6 and ...Bg7. Both Tejas and Peter created problems for themselves by sticking to their favorite development scheme when it really wasn't warranted.
From a coaching standpoint, there were lots of teachable moments:
(1) Don't underestimate your opponent's counterplay just because he dropped a piece. On 1st Board and 2nd Board, the Conant players were each up a piece against the Prospect players. in both cases, however, the Conant players had to weaken their positions in order to gain the material advantage. On 1st Board, Peter Dimopoulos was able to exploit the weaknesses in John Lasocki's position to win the game and Andrew Berowski had very good drawing chances against Greg Ruffing. On both boards, it seemed that the Conant players underestimated the weaknesses they had incurred.
(2) Don't let your opponent's time trouble change the way you play your game. On 2nd Board and 4th Board, the Conant players were in time trouble. Prospect's Kevin Kostka made the mistake of playing quickly in the hopes that John Calash would run out of time, but with less than ten seconds on his clock, John did a terrific job of creating problems for Kevin although Kevin held on to win. On 2nd Board, Conant's Greg Ruffing turned over scorekeeping duties to a teammate when his clock went below five minutes and Andrew Berowski did so as well even though he still had twenty minutes. It is just speculation, but I cannot help but wonder whether Andrew might have seen the threat that cost him the game if he had been forced to take an extra moment thinking about his opponent's move while writing it down.
(3) In an ending where both sides have bishops and pawns and the bishops travel on the same color squares, the pawns belong on the squares of the opposite colors. Conant's Joseph Man played such an ending very nicely against Tejas Shah to bring home the full point on 3rd Board.
(4) No matter how much you like to play the Sicilian Dragon, there are times when you are better off playing ...e6 and ...Be7 rather than ...g6 and ...Bg7. Both Tejas and Peter created problems for themselves by sticking to their favorite development scheme when it really wasn't warranted.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Prospect v. Elk Grove (2): Hope Chess vs. Real Chess
According to NM Dan Heisman, "hope chess" is being played when a player makes a move without trying to anticipate his opponent's best response, i.e., the player simply hopes that he will be able to find a way to deal with it when it appears on the board. "Real chess" is being played when the player considers all the possible responses to his move before making it and only makes a move if he is satisfied that he can deal with his opponent's best response.
Coaching high school students, I see lots of hope chess being played. Sometimes it is inexperienced players who have a hard time anticipating the possible responses to their moves. Just as often, however, it is practiced by players who have decent tactical vision and could probably figure how their opponent might respond if they took the time to do so. Stopping their opponent's plans just doesn't seem to provide them as much pleasure as pursuing their own.
I firmly believe that all chess is good chess and that players should play the game in the way that brings them pleasure. As for me, I don't enjoy being surprised by my opponent's moves (although it happens regularly). I really enjoy games in which I manage to anticipate thwart my opponent's plans so well that he is not quite sure why he lost afterwards. I think that players of hope chess might find they enjoy real chess if they tried it.
Prospect's Peter Dimoupolous has never lacked attacking instincts, but he has developed the ability to anticipate and thwart his opponent's plans as well. On 1st Board against Elk Grove, he took advantage of Nick Estrada's passive opening to take solid control of the game without allowing his opponent any real counterplay. On 2nd Board, Tejas Shah played real chess to recover from a passive opening but then let Calvin Cheng off with a draw when he played hope chess in the ending. On 3rd Board, Mike Zwolenik played too optimisticly against Elk Grove's Javier Morales.
Coaching high school students, I see lots of hope chess being played. Sometimes it is inexperienced players who have a hard time anticipating the possible responses to their moves. Just as often, however, it is practiced by players who have decent tactical vision and could probably figure how their opponent might respond if they took the time to do so. Stopping their opponent's plans just doesn't seem to provide them as much pleasure as pursuing their own.
I firmly believe that all chess is good chess and that players should play the game in the way that brings them pleasure. As for me, I don't enjoy being surprised by my opponent's moves (although it happens regularly). I really enjoy games in which I manage to anticipate thwart my opponent's plans so well that he is not quite sure why he lost afterwards. I think that players of hope chess might find they enjoy real chess if they tried it.
Prospect's Peter Dimoupolous has never lacked attacking instincts, but he has developed the ability to anticipate and thwart his opponent's plans as well. On 1st Board against Elk Grove, he took advantage of Nick Estrada's passive opening to take solid control of the game without allowing his opponent any real counterplay. On 2nd Board, Tejas Shah played real chess to recover from a passive opening but then let Calvin Cheng off with a draw when he played hope chess in the ending. On 3rd Board, Mike Zwolenik played too optimisticly against Elk Grove's Javier Morales.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Never Pay Attention to Your Opponent's Rating! Never!
It looks like my streak of gaining rating points for nine tournaments in a row may have ended this weekend in Madison. Just like last February, I won my first three games before losing to Master Alexander Betanelli in the last round. Unlike February's event, my opponent's ratings were a bit lower slower and my rating was a bit higher so the same score will probably knock me down a couple points rather than bumping me up a couple.
In the third round I played the black pieces against a young man named Xiaoming Wang who sported a rating of 1464, which for all I know could have been 400 points under his current strength. He played one of the sharpest lines against my Sicilian Najdorf, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5. This used to be the mainline in Bobby Fischer's day and it can lead to some extremely sharp positions with White castling queenside and pawn storming Black on the kingside.
In the third round I played the black pieces against a young man named Xiaoming Wang who sported a rating of 1464, which for all I know could have been 400 points under his current strength. He played one of the sharpest lines against my Sicilian Najdorf, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5. This used to be the mainline in Bobby Fischer's day and it can lead to some extremely sharp positions with White castling queenside and pawn storming Black on the kingside.
I thought I might be about to get my comeuppance for not having done any studying since the since the Chicago Open. One of the risks of playing the Sicilian is that I occasionally get blown off the board with the latest theoretical innovation from some GM tournament. Still, I figured it would be a fun game.
The game did not turn out like I expected. My opponent ended up playing rather passively. He held off castling until he saw where I put my king and then he put his on the same side. The position was very tight for twenty-six moves when he created a weakness that let me penetrate with my rook. Up until that point, I had nothing. After the game, he told me that he had recently studied the opening, but he did not want to play it the way he studied it because my rating was so high.
Since he was a nice young man, I did not want to tell him he was a fool to him to be intimidated by my rating, but he was. The truth is that I am thrilled when my opponents avoid opening theory because I am too lazy to keep up on it myself. I accept that the price of my laziness is going to be getting crushed occassionally by some kid who is booked up on his openings. Luckily, the last few who have done so have had high enough ratings that it has not hurt mine much, but there is no reason this lad could not have clipped me for twenty points.
I haven't been an expert very long, but it seems like more of my opponents cite my rating as a factor in their decisions than they did when my rating was under 2000. They are very silly. As an acquaintance of mine whose rating peaked at 1973 once said "Expert, Schmexpert!"
Friday, October 5, 2007
Prospect v. Elk Grove: Prospect Gets Served!!
(Since I am playing in Madison this weekend, I won't be able to review all the games until next week, but I wanted to report the results of the match.)
In the last few years, I have seen the Prospect players make some really bad moves. Nevertheless, I like to remind myself that they really are not any worse than some of the moves I have made in my own games; they are just more frequent. Against Elk Grove, though, our 2nd Board came up with one that was particularly impressive. After misplaying the opening against Elk Grove's Calvin Cheng, Tejas Shah did a good job of defending an unpleasant position and eventually found a couple of nice tactics to turn the game around. However, he played the ending nonchalantly and eventually found a blunder that turned his easy win into a draw and a drawn match into a loss.
Prospect lost to Elk Grove by a score of 39.5-28.5, giving Elk Grove its best record in four years. Because Elk Grove has been a weak team historically, Prospect's faculty coach Don Barrett decided that this would be a good match to give some of the reserves a chance to play. However, given that Elk Grove had defeated Rolling Meadows soundly in its first match of the season, substituting in four new boards might have been overly optimistic. While the subs triumphed on 7th and 8th Boards, Elk Grove punished Prospect on 3rd through 6th. Still, if Prospect could have gotten a full point on 2nd Board, the match would have been drawn.
A few years back, IM Larry D. Evans wrote an article in Chess Life arguing somewhat facetiously that checks are bad moves. This is plainly an exaggeration since checkmate wins the game. Nevertheless, it is often true that the best way to get to checkmate is by confining the opponent's king rather than by attacking it. I have seen countless games in which players aimlessly chase their opponent's king around the board with checks rather than driving it to the side of the board by cutting off its escape routes. A big part of chess progress is learning to think in terms of denying your opponent the squares he wishes to occupy.
In Tejas game, there were several points in which he could have made his life much easier by taking away squares from his opponent's king. The first point came in the following position.
In the last few years, I have seen the Prospect players make some really bad moves. Nevertheless, I like to remind myself that they really are not any worse than some of the moves I have made in my own games; they are just more frequent. Against Elk Grove, though, our 2nd Board came up with one that was particularly impressive. After misplaying the opening against Elk Grove's Calvin Cheng, Tejas Shah did a good job of defending an unpleasant position and eventually found a couple of nice tactics to turn the game around. However, he played the ending nonchalantly and eventually found a blunder that turned his easy win into a draw and a drawn match into a loss.
Prospect lost to Elk Grove by a score of 39.5-28.5, giving Elk Grove its best record in four years. Because Elk Grove has been a weak team historically, Prospect's faculty coach Don Barrett decided that this would be a good match to give some of the reserves a chance to play. However, given that Elk Grove had defeated Rolling Meadows soundly in its first match of the season, substituting in four new boards might have been overly optimistic. While the subs triumphed on 7th and 8th Boards, Elk Grove punished Prospect on 3rd through 6th. Still, if Prospect could have gotten a full point on 2nd Board, the match would have been drawn.
A few years back, IM Larry D. Evans wrote an article in Chess Life arguing somewhat facetiously that checks are bad moves. This is plainly an exaggeration since checkmate wins the game. Nevertheless, it is often true that the best way to get to checkmate is by confining the opponent's king rather than by attacking it. I have seen countless games in which players aimlessly chase their opponent's king around the board with checks rather than driving it to the side of the board by cutting off its escape routes. A big part of chess progress is learning to think in terms of denying your opponent the squares he wishes to occupy.
In Tejas game, there were several points in which he could have made his life much easier by taking away squares from his opponent's king. The first point came in the following position.
With 42...Kb3, Black could block out the White king and march his pawn down to a1 without annoyance. However, after 42...a4 43.Kb4 Bc2 44.Kc3, Black still has to figure out how to get out of his own way.
It took Black five extra moves to get his queen. In another five moves, he had another chance to restrict the White king.
The only chance White has to create any problems is by getting his king into the corner among Black's pawns. 53...Qg7+ would have driven the White towards the Black king where it can cooperate with the queen to deliver checkmate. Black played 53...Qe3+ 54.Kf7 Qe6+ 55.Kg7, when he still had to worry about possible stalemates.
Two moves later, Black had the White king where he wanted him.
However, rather than confining the White king and delivering checkmate with 57...Qh7 58.Ke8 Be6 59.Kf8 Qf7#, Black let the White king off the side of the board with 57...Bd7 and was no closer to ending the game after 58.Ke7 Qe6+ 59.Kf8.
I will spare the reader the final blunder that let White off with a draw until I post all the games next week. Moreover, I would caution future opponents not to take Tejas lightly based on his missteps here. He has always learned from his mistakes in the past and I am confident that he will do so again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
