Diary of a Patzer

macinalli

Interesting game! When I played it through my initial thoughts were that you were better, but overcomplicated it on a couple of occasions. For example, you give 18. Re6 a '!', but to my eyes you were better just taking Rxe7. Instead, you force the bishop to a better square. I don't think you can play 20. Rxe7 as your note suggests, as I think it falls to Bd4+. If 21 Bxd4, then Rxe7 as the rook is no longer defended. If you move the king (e.g. 21 Kh1) then Bxc5 and the bishop on c8 is now defending the rook on d7.

The other one that stood out to me is 25. Bc4. Why not 25. Rxc3 axb3 26. axb3. It's simpler, you win a pawn and you re-connect your 2 passed pawns. I know it's opposite coloured bishops, but with the rooks on board I think that black won't be able to stop those pawns.

The last 10 moves are well played. Blacks position is probably lost, but you never give him a chance to get the knight involved. An interesting game!

macinalli

Just took a look at your 2nd game! I think your decision to allow the doubled pawns is great as your 2 bishops then completely dominate the board. I was surprised though with 21. Qf4 - does Qf6 not win immediately? As it was, you had a nice finish 10 moves later!

Lucena

Just had a quick look through the game, I hadn't read macinalli's comments before, and 21. Qf6 seems to be winning. It does two things at the same time: Threatens Qg7# and also stops the f-pawn advancing which would limit the queen's access to g7.

Valmont

Yikes, I can't believe I missed Qf6 in the analysis either, it's as plain as day! Here is a draw I had at the same tournament, earlier on in the day. Once again a strong advantage ended up backfiring and I was lucky my opponent accepted a draw due to time trouble.

Lucena

Valmont wrote: »

Yikes, I can't believe I missed Qf6 in the analysis either, it's as plain as day! Here is a draw I had at the same tournament, earlier on in the day. Once again a strong advantage ended up backfiring and I was lucky my opponent accepted a draw due to time trouble.

More Yusupov needed!

macinalli

Valmont wrote: »

Yikes, I can't believe I missed Qf6 in the analysis either, it's as plain as day! Here is a draw I had at the same tournament, earlier on in the day. Once again a strong advantage ended up backfiring and I was lucky my opponent accepted a draw due to time trouble.

Well you certainly have entertaining games! I think that you would have been safe if you had taken the time around move 28 to start getting your king out of the centre. f4 is a lovely square for the bishop, but it doesn't do anything to stop d5 after which you're in trouble. I think you dodged a bullet at the end - your opponent has the fork Nb5 which will pick up the exchange and you'll still have those nasty centre pawns to deal with. King safety is always important!

If we're talking about books, then the one that did the most for me was Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. It's a challenging book, but well worth while!

Lucena

Your play seems to have improved a lot over the last year. What's your current rating (ECF and/or Fide) compared to a year ago?

Lucena

Valmont wrote: »

Yikes, I can't believe I missed Qf6 in the analysis either, it's as plain as day! Here is a draw I had at the same tournament, earlier on in the day. Once again a strong advantage ended up backfiring and I was lucky my opponent accepted a draw due to time trouble.

I thought you did well, possibly could have castled earlier. I like the way you realised that 10. a3 wasn't threatening anything and didn't automatically move the bishop as many would've done.

Valmont

I played a wild game tonight against a weaker opponent where we castled on opposite sides and had a race to see who could smash the king open first. I found an unusual defensive resource and probably could've finished my opponent off much sooner. I need to learn some lines against the scandinavian because I keep coming out worse after the 2...Nf6 line which everyone seems to play here.

Valmont

I played a topsy turvy game last night against a higher rated played (1667) and managed to squeak a draw. He got greedy and gave me a chance to open the position up but low on time I had to accept a perpetual check. I had a strong passed pawn and I wonder would any of you stronger players tell me if I had a win? I haven't put it through an engine.

Valmont

Lucena wrote: »

Your play seems to have improved a lot over the last year. What's your current rating (ECF and/or Fide) compared to a year ago?

My current ECF is 113 (ELO 1547) so I'm up about 150 ELO points since last year. And I still haven't finished Yusupov...only three chapters to go.

Valmont

Despite my not having finished Artur Yusupov's Build up your Chess: The Fundamentals in the fourteen months I've been working on it, I credit it with improving my discipline, calculation, and especially my end-game. I'm taking so long with it partly due to laziness and partly due to head-bangingly frustrating puzzles like this one (white to play and draw) which I refuse to give up on and end up leaving on my board for a week until I figure it out. I really live for that moment when a clear and simple solution just emerges from the haze as if it was just staring at you the whole time!

mikhail

Valmont wrote: »

Despite my not having finished Artur Yusupov's Build up your Chess: The Fundamentals in the fourteen months I've been working on it, I credit it with improving my discipline, calculation, and especially my end-game. I'm taking so long with it partly due to laziness and partly due to head-bangingly frustrating puzzles like this one (white to play and draw) which I refuse to give up on and end up leaving on my board for a week until I figure it out. I really live for that moment when a clear and simple solution just emerges from the haze as if it was just staring at you the whole time!

1.Bxe4+ fxe4 2.Re5+ Kxe5 stalemate

Lucena

Valmont wrote: »

I played a topsy turvy game last night against a higher rated played (1667) and managed to squeak a draw. He got greedy and gave me a chance to open the position up but low on time I had to accept a perpetual check. I had a strong passed pawn and I wonder would any of you stronger players tell me if I had a win? I haven't put it through an engine.

I had a look at the position last night and again this evening, and without seeing your notes (saw it afterwards), 29...Bd6 looks good. It vacates a square for the king (e7) and threatens to take on f4, either exchanging the knight or forcing it to move, so f5 drops as well. Even if the white rook checks on e1, you just go to f6 and the rook has no entry point into the black position.

I don't see anything later in the game though, ideally you probably shouldn't have pushed your passed pawn until everything was nice and ready, but here you had to create counterplay. Your ...Rxb3 was probably as you pointed out, a waste of time, the pawn wasn't going anywhere.

Nice choice of opening, Cambridge Springs I believe? A few small traps for White to navigate around!

Valmont

mikhail wrote: »

1.Bxe4+ fxe4 2.Re5+ Kxe5 stalemate

I saw this move and selected it as my choice resignedly as I didn't know that the resulting positions were drawn if black didn't play Kxe5. A very tricky puzzle!

Valmont

Lucena wrote: »

Nice choice of opening, Cambridge Springs I believe? A few small traps for White to navigate around!

Purely coincidental I'm afraid to say. My opponent mentioned this afterwards too but I didn't realise the set-up had a name. Although I may have learned it by osmosis from studying Chernev's section on 1.d4 in Logical Chess: Move by Move. It's early in the season yet but I don't think 1.e4 is going as well for me, even accounting for the stronger opposition. Black just seems to have too many pet replies like 1...d5, 1...e6, 1...Nf6. I think with 1.d4 the game is easier to control.

Lucena

I wouldn't really call those "pet replies", they're all well-established openings.

1. e4 d5 is the Scandinavian, I generally try to play the main line against the queen sortie. Against 2. exd5 Nf6 I follow up with 3. c4 c6 4. d4 with play generally ending up in a Panov attack, which is also the line I use against the Caro-Kann.

1. e4 e6 is the French. I recommend the Advance Variation, playing the Milner-Barry Gambit. The gambit doesn't have a great reputation, but my results are decent enough.

1. e4 Nf6 is the Alekhine, and to be honest, I've been winging it for a long time. Now I try to play into a Four Knights with 2. Nc3

Still, it's all a matter of style, and maybe d4 openings would suit you, but bear in mind that's there's lots of wild stuff there also: KID, Dutch, Grünfeld...

Valmont

Lucena wrote: »

1. e4 d5 is the Scandinavian, I generally try to play the main line against the queen sortie. Against 2. exd5 Nf6 I follow up with 3. c4 c6 4. d4 with play generally ending up in a Panov attack, which is also the line I use against the Caro-Kann.

The 2.exd5 Nf6 line is very common around these parts, and I have such a bad time against it that it makes me want to switch to 1.d4! I'm loath to study openings because I'm usually out of book very quickly and with all the permutations it just seems like a real drag on time. But I suppose it's necessary if I want to improve.

Valmont

The last few months have been tough, with consecutive boring draws against players above and below me. I'm starting to become a bit of a chicken offering draws whenever I can, mainly because I'm almost always behind on time. Anyhow I've been plugging away at tactics puzzles and Ludek Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy so I hadn't given up hope.

I also decided to cancel my year experimenting with 1.e4 early. There is just too much theory to learn what with 1...d5 ...c5 ...Nc6 ...g6 the list goes on. I've decided to go back to 1...c6 against 1...e4 and to play 1...d4 with white. I've bought Play the London System by Cyrus Lakdawala and it's just what I need: a flexible opening, light on theory, that I can crank out against most responses. It's wild but not too wild.

Anyhow I slumped along to the club tonight to play black against a 1750 (I'm now officially 1517 which is a bit misleading to be honest) player who had beaten me fairly easily last year so I wasn't too optimistic. However, I think my hard work is paying off! The occasional win like this make months of study and frustration worth it - what a brilliant game chess is!

Lucena

Probably a good idea to cut down on your opening work-load by going back to the CK. I switched to the Sicilian about two years ago, I'm happy enough with it but there are about 7 or 8 reasonable opening variations for White, all needing to be worked on.

Had a quick look at the game, nice tactic and lol for the 'I love endgames' guy! I bet his face was red!

macinalli

A nice finish to the game but I was shocked by your draw offer! White is a pawn down and completely passive because of your monstrous pawn chain - you have to make the guy work for his draw. Magnus Carlsen would not approve:pac:

cdeb

I don't play the Caro-Kann as black, but I think it's worth expanding on your note to move 6. You've a decent reason for playing ...a6, even though it's not a move we're supposed to play early on. But it's move 6 - so it's worth checking a few openings databases to see what others have played here.

4. Bf4 seems to be relatively rare - as indeed is the reply Bf5 - but for example, the gameknot World database gives 29 games at the same position you faced on move 6. In 28 of those, 6. ... Nc6 was played - developing a piece and answering both your headaches. Even Nf6 seems playable - the check can be blocked by Nbd7 and black seems fine, if a bit cramped.

I've found reviewing my games that always working out where I left book, what I should have played and (most importantly) why is helping me become more prepared the next time I face an opening. Might be worth incorporating into your training?

That is a very nice finish alright!

Valmont

I've had a very good few months, winning 7, drawing 4, and losing just 2 since November. I've gained a good few ELO points so that I'm now a paltry 1562 although my form for my last 9 games is 1690. At least I won't have to change the title of the thread any time soon. I lost in embarrassing fashion last week by throwing away a piece for nothing and realised that quitting the Yusupov book and stopping my chesstempo training had me very soft tactically. I dislike them both precisely because they hurt my brain and force me to calculate deeply but I've been missing too many tactics lately to carry on indulging in my book of Capablanca's best chess endings by Chernev. I've been back at Yusupov like a devil and I think it showed tonight when I was able to take my chance when it materialised. This was actually a do or die game, with our team needing at least two points out of a possible four to avoid relegation into the bottom division. I was also playing a player who had besmirched my good reputation by telling people I'd cheated in a game we played last October by offering him a draw when he was totally winning which he accepted and somehow felt I'd 'swindled' him. Anyway I not only beat him easily but he left a nice pen behind which I swiped after he'd left. My record for the season was 7-2-3.

Lucena

Never mind the game, any chance of a picture of the pen!:D

I had a look at the game, and while personally I wouldn't be a fan of the London System, your play on the whole seemed very smooth and logical, and it's probably not overly tactical either. Nicely played!

Valmont

Two recent losses:

One in which I went down to king and pawn against a player possessing a whopping 2260 ELO points.

One the night before which involved me being steamrolled by a player rated a whopping 1382 ELO points. I annotated this to punish myself for playing so unbelievably rubbish.