Friday, September 14, 2007

Ernie Hong-Pearson 09.13.07 1-0

After a couple of agonizing weeks without a tournament game (Alaska vacation, last night of family members in town), I finally got back in action against Reno CC Secretary and Expert-rated Ernie Hong (2002).

On move 8, instead of playing the safe c6 and settling in for a tough struggle I play the cute (but actually ugly) Qf5 after a 13-minute think, believing I'm going to shatter his kingside. He can't play 9. g4 because he will end up two pawns down, when I win back the knight...wrong! He thinks for 24 minutes and finds the simple 11. Nd4, which I should have seen if I was really doing my job. After this I'm just trying everything I can to muddy the waters--at one point I even have 5 pawns for two minor pieces! Unfortunately, none of them have any threat going, and after another blunder in 22. ... Nd4 it's really all over, though a queen running through a minefield would have lost quickly, anyway.

To sum up, he shows Expert skillz, and I get a lesson on what I need to do to play better. All in all, it was pretty fun and beneficial for a loss!

Also, the yearly Reno CC organizational meeting was held before the game and I was reelected Sergeant-at-Arms. They gave me a halberd to start cutting up kibbitzers and loud postmortem participants. Seriously, after you game is over, whisper your analysis, dude, or I'm going to lop a couple of fingers with this thing!



[Event "Reno CC Sept. Swiss"]
[Site "Reno, NV"]
[Date "2007.09.13"]
[Time "000"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Hong, Ernie"]
[Black "Pearson, Robert"]
[TimeControl "30/90 G/60"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qa5 5. Bc4 Bg4 6. h3 Bh5 7. d3 e6 8. Bd2 Qf5 9. g4 Nxg4 10. hxg4 Bxg4 11. Nd4 Qe5+ 12. Nde2 Nc6 13. Bf4 Bxe2 14. Nxe2 Qxb2 15. Rb1 Bb4+ 16. c3 Bxc3+ 17. Kf1 Qa3 18. Rb3 Qxa2 19. Nxc3 Qa5 20. Nb5 e5 21. Bd2 Qb6 22. Be3 Nd4 23. Nxd4 Qf6 24. Nb5 0-0 25. Nxc7 Rac8 26. Nd5 Qd6 27. Rxb7 Rfe8 28. Qh5 1-0


8 comments:

Chess Teaching said...

Instead of 8...c6 it would probably be possibe to try something like 8...Nbd7 or to move the c-pawn after white's fifth move Bc4

Douglas L Stewart said...

I'd suggest 3 .. Nxd5 instead of taking with your Queen (that's the point of 2 .. Nf6 right?).

Instead of 8 .. Qf5, I like 8 .. Nbd7. The fact that White can throw their knight somewhere might look a little scary, but there is nothing concrete there. I'm not it's a threat to be permanently ignored, but you'll get in .. c6 and probably .. Qc7 soon enough.

What's funny is 9 g4 might not be the next move. After 11 Nd4, just play 11 .. Bxd1 (instead of 11 .. Qe5+) 12 Nxf5 Bf3 things are actually not that bad for Black. White has both a rook and a piece hanging.

Your last chance to stay in the game was 13 .. Qxf4 14 Nxf4 Bxd1 15 Rxd1 O-O-O, where you have two pawns for the piece and not a lot of weaknesses.

chessloser said...

you should play chess with the halberd at your side...between moves, get up and patrol the tournament floor...i hope you play wearing leather armbands with the spikes in them....

Ernie Hong said...

Douglas Stewart found some good lines that I agree with. Horizon effect on both sides of the board. I didn't see 12...Bf3 gaining a tempo on the Rh1 and you get to keep the two pawns for a while. I have to castle and throw my pieces forward just to get one pawn back.

Wahrheit said...

Thanks very much for taking the time to comment on my game, everyone. I'm learning a lot from everyone...especially chessloser! The armbands ought to be worth 100 rating points in intimidation factor...

Seriously, I really appreciate everyone pointing out some improvements, and I'll be a better player because of it, so thanks again!

Eric Shoemaker said...

Hi Robert, I hate to offer criticism, especially to a friend, but because you are a friend, this has to be said: If you ever intend to make it back to "A-Player", you need to put some self-control back into your game.

You're entirely too reckless and your rating is suffering because of it.

The good players in the chess club (Hong among them) are not going down to dubious tactical displays. If there is no preparation, we're simply going to take your pieces and walk off with the win.

I looked over your game with Hong and at one point, you're just down pieces without any real compensation to speak of.

I would like to see you get back your A-rating, but with your current style, I can't see it happening.

As for my loss to Soltani, I actually deserved it since I played the Grünfeld Defense without any real preparation--feeling it out so to speak. If you're too reckless, I'm too passive especially with the Black pieces.

With the players at my level and beyond, I simply have to be able to take more risks if I want greater rewards.

The Queen's Gambit Declined is a great defense and will always be in my opening repertoire, but I have to play with more aggression also, which is not easy, considering I like the more solid Classical Defenses rather than the Indian Defenses.

That said, I hope you will be more objective at the board.

One more thing you might choose to think about...This aggressive style with no real preparation is keeping you at your floor, in case you haven't noticed.

And this style of yours is not capable of stringing wins and draws together while keeping losses to an absolute minimum. So far, I even see more losses than victories on your part with it, which can't be correct chess or even good chess.

Douglas Stewart is right about the opening phase. If you're going to take with the Queen, then why play ...Nf6? And I would never walk into a fork (g4) unless I had everything calculated down to the ground and below the earth even!

Well, that's all I have to say about this game.

Hopefully, you heed my warning before the Western States, otherwise I do not see you scoring well.

Have you ever read "Camus?" Your games are starting to remind me of the story "The Myth of Sisyphus", which deals with Suicide and futile efforts.

Eric

Tom Chivers said...

Ouch. I'm astonished you think that was fun!

Eric Shoemaker said...

You're right Tom. It hurt me more than it did him I know just to say that, but he could be better than he is, this I know.

Besides, without mentioning any names, there's a certain individual who flatters Robert at every turn. Niccolo Machiavelli warns against flattery and those kinds of people, the Bible too for that matter. Robert may not like what I have to say, but at least he's going to get both sides of the story.

I think Robert knows that I will tell it like it is. His current chess thinking is way too far out there and the best thing for him to do now is to "Revamp" his style or recreate himself over the board.

Except for the win I messed up tonight, I have done fairly well by recreating myself at the chess board. I still have a lot of work to do and it is likely I will suffer more losses so that I can become the player I want to be.

I absolutely hated losing two games to "Scrubs", but changes were necessary as I was too passive with the Black pieces and have been for a long time now. That's going to end because I firmly believe that if you want greater rewards (Ratings, certainly not money) from chess, then you have to take greater risks.

But greater risks need to be balanced out to where it is not reckless play. In my opinion, Robert is too reckless where I was too passive. I'm seeking middle ground and I think that's best for Robert also.

Sometimes the hard call has to be made. I personally do not like any of the Indian Defenses against the Queen pawn. Perhaps it is because I have been successful against all of them. I certainly have plus scores on all of them! But whether I like it or not, I need to begin playing an Indian Defense or remain forever passive with my Queen's Gambit Declined, and believe me, a good Exchange Variation player can make your chances of winning almost nil! Therefore, it's time to reinvent myself with the Black pieces.

Not to worry though, I am sure Robert will say something about all of this. I know he doesn't think "1600" is acceptable.

Eric