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?
Showing posts with label Buffalo Grove. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buffalo Grove. Show all posts
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.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
