Diary of a Patzer

Valmont

namenotavailabl wrote: »

I have to admit that I think your 15th move was rather unfortunate- as you note, you might be somewhat prone to "attack, attack, attack" which caused you to retain all your pieces in position for the e6 sacrifice rather than "play in a dull manner". Personally, I'd have definitely said you had a real advantage after 15. Qxf3 -> two bishops, extra pawn and a solid pawn structure with latent potential, safe looking king, no really easy breaks for black. It may not be winning but it looks like it would be almost risk free for white to play on and make Black sweat

If I played 15. Qxf3 then he would play 15...Rxc4 and I would be down a piece - unless I missed something?

Ciaran

Lucena wrote: »

@cdeb. I thought everyone had their chess spider story. Here's mine.

I was playing an opponent who had the black pieces when I noticed a tiny spider on h8. So I said to him "there's a spider on h8" so that he'd pick up the rook and blow the spider away.

So he picks up the rook, sticks his thumb down on the poor spider, squishes it into the board and then wipes his thumb on his trousers before putting back the rook.

If I'd known he was going to kill it, I would've said nothing.

Were you reluctant to take that rook in the game?

cdeb

namenotavailabl wrote: »

Mate in 2 puzzles can be plenty tricky but you'd think that a mate in 1 where there's only one solution should be manageable.....try this one for size For avoidance of doubt, the a1 square is the lower left corner of the board illustrated.

That's super!

I thought I was being really smart with

1. PxB=N+

and went and checked the answer down below...and was wrong.

A really head-wrecking puzzle.

namenotavailablE

Valmont wrote: »

If I played 15. Qxf3 then he would play 15...Rxc4 and I would be down a piece - unless I missed something?

D'oh, d'oh and d'oh thrice over...excuse me while I find a rock to crawl under....yes, you're absolutely correct. I totally missed that

Valmont

So my struggle with Build Up Your Chess 1: The Fundamentals by Artur Jusupov has reached another climax this week with chapter ten: 'the opposition'. This chapter is building on chapter four: 'simple pawn endings' which I scored 'good' a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the message from chapter four seems to have not sunk in too deeply and I was completely adrift with the puzzles at the end of chapter ten (and most of the lesson, too).

I was tempted to rush through and fail like I did with the infamous chapter eight in order to stick to my chapter a week promise but I think my trouble with king and pawn endings points to a huge weakness that needs to be addressed. Even deceptively straightforward (white to play up the board) king and pawn end games have a dizzying number of initial moves that really tax my ability to calculate. My tactics training on chesstempo rarely if ever covers these positions and the I've never had a king and pawn end game since I started playing chess so naturally I don't have a clue what I'm looking for or how to go about it (even if I grasp the basic idea of the opposition).

As luck would have it, I was in the library today and found that they have an impressive selection of chess books, one of which is titled Secrets of Pawn Endings by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht. The first few chapters look to cover the basics that Jusupov does but in much more detail; the authors assume you know nothing, as I do, which is very helpful. Whereas Jusupov's test had to cover a range of difficulties and problem-types in a short test, chapter one of this book had 14 relatively easy puzzles that I nevertheless found very taxing on my calculating abilities. I think I'll cover a few more of these introductory chapters and then tackle chapter ten in Jusupov's book; I want to give it my best shot when I do so I think this is a good idea.

And now that my patzer rambling is over, here are some of the classic simple problems for you to test your ending skills:

This one I did not get right. Black to play down the board.

I took a long long time with this one but I found all of the relevant variations. Play once as black to move and then as white.

I've seen variations of this one before (white to play) but it sums up the topic for me. As soon as I recognised the theme of this arrangement I knew where my King had to go and as a result I didn't have to spend nearly as long as I have been calculating all of black's possible responses to each move.

Lucena

Valmont wrote: »

I played a junior of an equal rank last night and while he was better after the opening, his confidence was misplaced and he blundered two pieces in one tactic giving me the win. I have to say this was a very satisfying victory as he was playing rather arrogantly up until his mistake. Not a great game on my behalf though, but our team are now the clear leaders of division 3!

After Black's sixth move, your thought process should be "My opponent has an unprotected piece, is there a tactic"? Then take a couple of minutes to look for a tactc. Ok, there won't always be one, but sometimes even when there isn't, you can possibly benefit, as the opponent may have to lose a tempo moving the piece back, defending it or whatever.

You seem to think 14 ...d4 is a good move for Black, but without computer checking, it seems quite poor to me for a couple of reasons:
- Opening up the centre with the king uncastled isn't generally a good idea
- He's ignoring his development

I personally would have taken, if Black takes with the knight, challenge the knight with Be3. If Black exchanges on b3, I no longer have the bishop-pair, but my development is good, I can quickly move my two rooks to the d- and e-files.

I think the question of not castling early enough has already come up on this thread, and basically this game was lost because of that. With the king in the centre and the heavy pieces lined up, tactics abound and the uncastled king is gonna have a bad time.

Valmont

I played an improving teenager rated 1330 last night and we probably set the record for the most ? in one game. My material advantage proved conclusive in the end but my opponent refused to resign and I ended up with checkmate with less than one minute on the clock. I would say a game to forget but I think I should study some of the dubious opening decisions I made along with the decisions that frittered away a position that looked rich in tactical possibilities.

While I have been losing in the internal club championship against much higher rated players, I have eight wins, one draw, and a loss, against similarly rated players in the league which is not too bad considering this time last year I was on a six month losing streak.

Valmont

I played a 1600 last night in a disappointing game where I fell into my old habit of simply shooting myself in the foot when playing against a patient opponent. I have a lot of work to do to lift myself up to 1500. Does anyone have any advice for managing time more effectively? I am consistently getting into real trouble on the clocks.

Mustafa Chess

This thread is far more interesting than some of the others now. Fischer's book is always worth trying to understand.

Valmont

Even when I don't understand some of the moves, the annotations are just the right amount to give you an insight into his thinking and to keep the game flowing if you are casually reading. If you want to delve a bit deeper you can play 'guess the move' which is what I usually do with one of the games over the time I might spend in an actual game.

Valmont

I squandered a strong attack tonight on two occasions and was lucky to scrape with a draw. My king-hunting skills need work and I need to learn some composure. I usually spend most games panicking unnecessarily.

namenotavailablE

On your 16th move, Nf4 (instead of Rad1) looks interesting. The threat is Ng6 (exploiting the pin on f7) as well as generally having the possibility of getting another piece in the direction of Black's king side with Nh5.

Valmont

That was the time to play it all right. I saw the possibilities but after his bishop was on b7 x-raying my queen the effect was blunted somewhat.

Valmont

I had two games as black this week, one against an 1800 who smashed me into little pieces. Then I played a league game against a fellow 1410 which was possibly the most interesting game I've played. I created a very complex position (well to me and my opponent's eyes at any rate) that caused us to use quite a lot of time and after I edged ahead with a strong position I eventually won a piece and traded into the end game which would have been an easy conversion, even for me. With this win, we have strengthened our position as number 1 in the division and if our last four games go the same way we will be playing in division 2 next season and every game I post here is destined to be a loss.

Lucena

Valmont wrote: »

I had two games as black this week, one against an 1800 who smashed me into little pieces. Then I played a league game against a fellow 1410 which was possibly the most interesting game I've played. I created a very complex position (well to me and my opponent's eyes at any rate) that caused us to use quite a lot of time and after I edged ahead with a strong position I eventually won a piece and traded into the end game which would have been an easy conversion, even for me. With this win, we have strengthened our position as number 1 in the division and if our last four games go the same way we will be playing in division 2 next season and every game I post here is destined to be a loss.

The 'smashed into little pieces' game: In your comments, you mention that you need to study some openings. Usually I'd advise against opening study, generally lower-rated players make mistakes elsewhere (tactics, middlegame planning, endgames...) and spending too much time on openings is wasted. However there are certain openings where general principles will only take you so far. The Morra Gambit is one of them.

Basically White gives up the pawn for rapid development. According to theory, Black is a little better, but will have to weather the tactical storm. From a practical point of view, an amateur doesn't have time to learn the Morra properly (as Black), as there are lots of other variations White can play against the Sicilian, so anything you learn against the Morra will be long forgotten by the time somebody plays it against you.

So basically avoid the Morra by not taking on c3. Here's a free rough and ready opening guide for you.

4. c3 Nf6 (if White wants to take on d4, he'll have to do it with the queen, as 5. cxd4 loses a pawn to Nxe4. So White doesn't get the centre, and you'll gain a tempo against 5. Qxd4 Nc6)

That's all you need to know! Well, maybe not, but you've got a playable position without the need to know tonnes of theory.

Lucena

The 'interesting game': Regarding the opening, the 'c3 Sicilian', you played it fine. White is just trying to hold on to the centre and find a solid position without the fireworks normally associated with the Sicilian. You can stick with the line that you played.

On move 9, I'd either have castled, or played Nf5, attacking d4 twice and also freeing up the e7 square for your bishop if you want to keep the bishop pair.

I definitely like 12... Qc7, for lots of reasons. There's no longer the discovered attack with c4, the queen is fairly secure, and White's backward c4 pawn is going to be difficult to defend.

Taking the pawn on move 21 definitely required a bit of calculation, it's not one of those moves you can play without thinking. Sometimes though you have to hurt your brain to progress in chess, or to win material. It's not all grinding out technical wins, you know, sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.:cool:

Well done on spotting the tactic on move 23! It had been in the position for a few moves, seeing as the knight could always take on d2 with check, White needed to be careful, and wasn't.

One final thing, I notice you're still taking ages to castle, as I mentioned before. Ok, in this game you weren't punished for it, but I think you'll progress more quickly as a player if you castle earlier.

Regarding chess improvement in general, and taking advice in particular, the following is worth a read:

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.fr/2008/07/improve-your-chess-ii-vice-and-advice.html

Valmont

I've noticed a trend in my OTB thinking to always look for a speedy tactical win (which has yet to appear!). Consequently I think castling is just a chance for my opponent to seize the initiative early on, and I'm afraid of being crushed so I attack a bit too early. It explains moves like 12...Nf5 when 12...Qc7 was my first instinct; I think I need to trust my intuition a little bit more especially for quiet moves (18...b5 being a good a example I think).

I've gone over my games since you advised me to castle earlier and out of the twenty one I've played, I haven't castled at all 5 times, before move ten 8 times, 5 times before move 15, and twice before move 20. Those five are quite telling actually, I don't think there is even one game in Logical Chess: Move by Move where a player doesn't castle! However, I'm really thinking 'why would the Irish Tal need to castle like a coward?'.

Lucena

What you say about looking for a speedy win is interesting. I've noticed that in games against vastly stronger opposition (2000+), I'll usually play normal moves for about 10-15 moves, run out of ideas and make some random attacking gestures, partially because I've no other ideas, and partially I'd imagine because I'm afraid if I don't attack first, my opponent will. It usually ends badly! In the last couple of cases, after the game my opponent will usually say that I had a normal position and I just needed to keep developing.

In my defence, I will say it's generally in openings I don't know too well and where I'm not aware of the key ideas. Even having seen a few games in an opening can help, you get an idea of where pieces need to go, the courage to play certain pawn pushes because you've seen it done.

Regarding castling: While there are always exceptions, in general you have to castle, and so does your opponent. If you have castled and your opponent hasn't, you need to try to open the centre as quickly as possible and threaten his king. If my memory serves correctly, you did exactly this with the white pieces in a recent game.

Mustafa Chess

How is chess in Italy

Valmont

My first game in almost a month highlighted the same limitations. Curiously, my stagnation with Yusupov and his end-game puzzles has meant I have not improved at all - surprise surprise! I've been really busy with work and will continue to be so I need to find a slot for chess practice on the weekend and stick to it. I have to say, it's not much fun losing to the same player for the third time in as many months!

Any advice for me? Or have I covered my mistake in the notation?

Lucena

Mustafa Chess wrote: »

How is chess in Italy

Is that question for me or for Valmont?

If it's for me, I live in France, in an area with a fairly high level of chess activity, with plenty of Fide-rated individual and team tournaments throughout the year.

Valmont

I had a brilliant draw with white this evening against a 1700 player to whom I expected to lose badly. A draw isn't usually something to cheer about but given the fact my opponent has 300 ELO more than I do and that I was finally able to use my king and pawn endgame skills (learned very slowly and painfully from Yusupov) to salvage a draw despite being a piece down, I was very chuffed indeed. Games like this one remind me why I study chess books - they work!

mikhail

Valmont wrote: »

I had a brilliant draw with white this evening against a 1700 player to whom I expected to lose badly. A draw isn't usually something to cheer about but given the fact my opponent has 300 ELO more than I do and that I was finally able to use my king and pawn endgame skills (learned very slowly and painfully from Yusupov) to salvage a draw despite being a piece down, I was very chuffed indeed. Games like this one remind me why I study chess books - they work!

I thought you outplayed him in the opening, and look a little better after move 17 or so. I think your play got a little aimless after that. Qc7 was a blunder. Black should have no worries with the knight for the pawns.

I don't think much of how he played it after that: ...h5 and letting you exchange the knight both look very strange to me. 52...Bb3 was a mistake - simply 52...Ba6 53.Ka2 Bb5 54.Kb2 Bc4 and you're in zugzwang.

I was looking at 75.Kg5 as an alternative to what you played. 75...Ke6 is obviously inferior after 76.h5. 75...Bg4 is also rubbish - when you run the h pawn, his king is deflected, allowing Kf6 and the bishop can't defend both pawns. 75...Bd3 looks best, but you now have the g4 break, liquidating one of his pawns and leaving you with two passed pawns. It looks like a draw to me.

I wanted to check those likes with a computer, but the computer insisted 75.Kh7 was terrible for White - like -15 terrible, which seemed a lot for it to just be unable to see a fortress draw. It looks like Black just transposes back into the position after 71...Bh5. Basically, Black forces White advance the h pawn either after a Kh6 Bg6 manoeuvre or if White heads for the back rank, with ...Kg6, h5+ Kf6.

Add 71 to all of there moves to make this consistent with the game:

1.Kh6 [1.Kg8 Bg6 and all roads lead to zugzwang and ultimately to mate. 2.Kf8 (2.Kh8 Kf7 3.h5 Bxh5 4.Kh7 Bg6+ 5.Kh8 (5.Kh6 Kf6) 5...Kf8) 2...Bf7] 1...Be8 2.Kh7 Bf7 3.Kh6 [3.Kh8 Kg6 4.h5+ Kh6 and White is in zugzwang 5.e4 dxe4 6.g4 fxg4 7.f5 g3 8.f6 g2 9.d5 g1Q 10.d6 Qg8#] 3...Bg6 4.h5 Bf7 5.Kh7 Bxh5 and the computer sees mate in 19 using the now-familiar zugzwang tricks.

I should say, some 1700s would find this over the board, but it's certainly tricky, and I don't think it should take away from your result.

Valmont

mikhail wrote: »

I thought you outplayed him in the opening, and look a little better after move 17 or so. I think your play got a little aimless after that. Qc7 was a blunder. Black should have no worries with the knight for the pawns.

Thanks for the feedback. I always play aimlessly after the opening because I don't know what to do! I had a vague plan of controlling some squares on the c file but I couldn't see how to go about it.

mikhail wrote: »

52...Bb3 was a mistake - simply 52...Ba6 53.Ka2 Bb5 54.Kb2 Bc4 and you're in zugzwang.

I had a sense he could have played this sequence better too. The strange thing is my opponent beat a 2080 in the endgame last week - perhaps he was lazy because of my rating?

Mikhail wrote:

I was looking at 75.Kg5 as an alternative to what you played. 75...Ke6 is obviously inferior after 76.h5. 75...Bg4 is also rubbish - when you run the h pawn, his king is deflected, allowing Kf6 and the bishop can't defend both pawns. 75...Bd3 looks best, but you now have the g4 break, liquidating one of his pawns and leaving you with two passed pawns. It looks like a draw to me.
....

I want to look at all this analysis but I couldn't have played Kg5 on move 75 - where have you deviated from?

Thanks

mikhail

My pleasure.

Valmont wrote: »

I want to look at all this analysis but I couldn't have played Kg5 on move 75 - where have you deviated from?

I have the game from your link open, and I don't see any reason you can't play it. I'd suggest you check the link, in case there's some mistake in that copy of the game. Failing that, tell me why you think you can't play 75.Kg5

Valmont

Sorry Mikhail I see what you mean now. It seems my opponent missed not one but two wins in the end-game. First he blundered with 52...Bb3 and then after I played the innocent looking 75. Kh7 which I've seen now that it allows black to win white's h pawn. Quite an instructive end-game all things considered! My opponent maybe needs to work on forcing zugzwang considering he kept leaving me with decent king moves.

Valmont

We had our final game of the season last night and while I sat out to let another player in, we won 3-1 meaning we are the winners of the Norfolk third division! I played on board four for most of the season beginning at 76 ECF and finishing on 99 after ten wins, one loss, and two draws. Division two will be tougher next season but I think I could do with some more challenging league games. I played in a tough internal competition and my final tally was zero wins, seven losses, and two draws. I also finally completed chapter ten of Yusupov's book and went one further and finished chapter eleven on pins. Next there is another tactics chapter on double attacks which should be interesting. Even though the season is over I don't want to get rusty so I've signed up for a four-round swiss next month and this weekend I'm playing for Norfolk for the under 100ECF bracket in Cambridge. To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed with my progress this year. Overall I've completed just under half of Yusupov's book, played twenty two games, and I'm still just under the 100ECF milestone (1450 ELO). However, just before my last jump in rating I could tell a breakthrough was close and I think I'm getting there again as certain things are starting to fall into place. Patience is a big factor; I've often been my own worst enemy, ruining perfectly equal or better positions by launching a hasty attack but I think I'm slowing down now and blundering less so I just need a win against a player over 100ECF to get the ball rolling.

Valmont

I finally beat a stronger opponent today at the ECF under 100 inter-county quarter final. It was a very close affair and it took me a long time to nurse my extra pawn into a win. I made a huge blunder on move 60 by sacrificing a knight to gain a passed pawn but my opponent concurred with my assessment and declined the offer. Otherwise I think I played ok. Once again the trusty caro-kann gave me a winning pawn formation.

Valmont

I've had a bit of breakthrough (a small one really) over the last few weeks. Yusupov's chapter on double attacks recommends that a good way to spot tactics of this kind is to simply start by looking for ways to win hanging pieces. I combined this with an insight of my own that a relatively efficient way to spot tactics was to examine what squares each of my opponent's moves left unprotected or not protected as much. Lo and behold my chesstempo rating has risen by 150 points in ten days to 1750! I just need to transfer this to a few games.

Lucena

That's quite impressive! If you can maintain that level while still doing problems regularly, you should definitely see results over the board.

My own chesstempo rating tends to be around 1800, so we're actually of similar strength.