On Monday I had a wonderful time at the Juneau Chess Club and feel like I made contact again with "Real Chess," since much of my chess activity lately has been blitz on FICS, with the occasional G/15 (I guess that's not blitz) included. This despite the fact that in December I seemingly resolved to stop playing blitz...
Oh, the weakness of the flesh.
The first good thing that happened Monday was that seven people showed up, the most since I started coming a few months ago. We don't generally use clocks for the two-hour club session, so I sat down to play Brian Bezenek at just after 7:00 pm, and two hours and 61 moves later the game ended just before the librarians came to kick us out.
It was a fascinating and subtle struggle. As Black against a King's Indian Attack I won a pawn in the early middle game and in a position with one rook, opposite-colored bishops and most of the pawns left the maneuvering game began. All I needed was an open file for my rook to get into his position and I figured I'd have a great chance to win, but it was fascinating how move after move he prevented me from doing that. Finally I was able to send my bishop on a mission that was like a three-cushion billiard shot around to the rear of his position and win another pawn. Yet it was still a tough game to figure out how to win. My opponent just kept putting up stout resistance. Finally, on the 61st move, with time running out he blundered, but kudos to Brian for toughness.
This was the kind of game I could probably never play at online blitz, where the premium is on moving without too much thinking and attacking something as often as possible. While blitz has its place in the universe, I was reminded Monday that "Real Chess" is just more deeply satisfying, like cotton candy versus roast beef.
We are planning a Juneau City Championship tournament starting May 16. I'll be concentrating on the more serious brand of chess in the meantime.
Showing posts with label Real Chess. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Real Chess. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sunday, December 14, 2008
On Giving Up Internet Blitz (Again)
Since I last played in the five hour marathons at the Reno Chess Club (see here for my rather whiny farewell) most of my chess activity has consisted of blitz on FICS. While I've certainly gotten some satisfaction and enjoyment from these games, I've also gotten into some pretty bad habits.
As James Stripes writes in this post at his excellent Chess Skills blog, "Blitz and rapid chess involve a lot of smoke and mirrors, while standard chess is a quest for truth." I have seen that in the evolution (devolution?) of my "style" over the last months; I developed the typical blitzer's habits of playing trap chess and "hope chess," always pushing forward and doing very little consolidation, rarely playing for an "edge" or going for a superior endgame. I have had some nice artistic successes, learned a lot about the openings...and hung a lot of pieces.
Last night I had a good winning streak, ran my blitz rating up to a reasonably respectable 1377, and having a desire to get back to the "quest for truth" have decided to play only 15 0 or longer (the minimum for standard rated games) for the present. My FICS rating at that is 1686, and I figure I could get that quite a bit higher by playing serious, real chess.
Meanwhile, I've gone to a couple of meetings of the Juneau Chess Club, which is a laid-back affair for two hours at the library, once a week. There are several pretty decent tournament players in my town, in the 1400-1600 USCF range, so I'm going to get busy organizing a "stimulus package" and start playing rated games again. Game in 90 minutes to be the maximum, if I have my druthers. There are also several tournaments a year up in Anchorage and starting next summer I expect to have the time and money to travel to something in the "Lower 48."
So right now I'm headed off to get back to "real chess," because I've gotten a bit shallow, and hope is not a plan.
As James Stripes writes in this post at his excellent Chess Skills blog, "Blitz and rapid chess involve a lot of smoke and mirrors, while standard chess is a quest for truth." I have seen that in the evolution (devolution?) of my "style" over the last months; I developed the typical blitzer's habits of playing trap chess and "hope chess," always pushing forward and doing very little consolidation, rarely playing for an "edge" or going for a superior endgame. I have had some nice artistic successes, learned a lot about the openings...and hung a lot of pieces.
Last night I had a good winning streak, ran my blitz rating up to a reasonably respectable 1377, and having a desire to get back to the "quest for truth" have decided to play only 15 0 or longer (the minimum for standard rated games) for the present. My FICS rating at that is 1686, and I figure I could get that quite a bit higher by playing serious, real chess.
Meanwhile, I've gone to a couple of meetings of the Juneau Chess Club, which is a laid-back affair for two hours at the library, once a week. There are several pretty decent tournament players in my town, in the 1400-1600 USCF range, so I'm going to get busy organizing a "stimulus package" and start playing rated games again. Game in 90 minutes to be the maximum, if I have my druthers. There are also several tournaments a year up in Anchorage and starting next summer I expect to have the time and money to travel to something in the "Lower 48."
So right now I'm headed off to get back to "real chess," because I've gotten a bit shallow, and hope is not a plan.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Chess Inputs, Filters and Results (Part I)
In my post on my last round game in the Reno Chess Club Ch. Qualifier I promised an exploration of "other factors in the final result of a chess game" and today we'll take a shot at this; in the meantime the excellent Phaedrus of Chess Vision has provided a post and chart that will be helpful, so perhaps you'll hit the link and review that before continuing...
Back already? Okay, first, I hope he doesn't mind my linking his very useful chart so that you can refer to it without jumping back and forth:
In the comments I suggested that it might be instructive to have the green boxes placed in between the "transfer" and "playing" boxes; as I said there:
[T]he green boxes (concentration, stamina and time management) almost act as a filter or "bottleneck" to showing the level of patterns, calculation and visualization (after transfer). So the green boxes might be placed in line with and after transfer; if they are all 100 percent "open" then the player's full strength is available (and this would be rare or impossible); the more any one of these physical/psychological factors is "constricted" the smaller percentage of strength is showing in the play on the board.
___________________________________________________
I've read a lot of chess books over the years (probably too many), played over master games and done tactical exercises (probably not enough) and yet I've seen very little specific, useful material in the chess literature on the important topics, the filters that attenuate your results, of concentration, stamina and time management.
Now these things are not totally neglected, but some of the advice is obvious and trite, ("Eat well, exercise and get enough sleep"), some is conflicting ("Don't get up from the board often, it takes time to refocus, but do get up and stretch, keep blood flowing to the brain"), and some is confusing ("don't study openings, but if by studying openings you get into a playable middlegame having saved time and energy for later, why, DO study openings!").
I'm going to use my game with Chris Harrington, mentioned above, as an illustration of how all of these factors affect the results of the game, because for our purposes here it's going to be only the results that count; "playing well" for most of the game, getting "good positions" and so on are for all practical purposes useless. The concentration, stamina and time management "boxes" are where playing well becomes playing poorly and good positions are turned into losses. I'll be focusing on these things from that perspective.
For reference, here's my game with Chris:
On the surface, here's a one-paragraph description of the game (from my perspective): We both played the opening by the book for 13 moves which left me 83 minutes for only 17 more moves; on move 21 he overlooked my tactical idea and I won a piece for two pawns with a "winning" (heh) position; on move 26 and 29 I don't play the good move Ne4 despite the fact that I looked at it, and lose most of my advantage; and after the time control at move 30 my play is pretty weak, my moves 33, 34 and especially 36 are all (?), meanwhile he plays well, knowing he's down material he activates his pieces against my draughty king position and takes advantage of the openings I give him to play a winning combination.
Under the surface: During the four days before the game my wife was working out of town and I had the entire responsibility for taking care of the home and our son, and though I got a decent amount of sleep the night before the game I had had less than adequate rest the two previous nights. As noted, I played the first 13 moves quickly but having plenty of time available I spent 7-12 minutes on several of the moves between 14 and 25, some of which could have been played more quickly, but I was sometimes looking at the same lines over and over, checking and rechecking since I was starting to feel tired and "vacant" and this led to even more fatigue. I felt pretty decent during the first part of the game, but even though my opponent was playing quite quickly (less than 50 minutes for the whole game) right around the critical point of move 26-30 I was already feeling dopey, though less than 2.5 hours had passed since the beginning of the game.
When we reached this position with White to make his 36th move:
I was sincerely trying my best, but I felt rather like there was a fog before my eyes; my focus was no longer on the whole board and my opponent's possibilities. As best I can remember I was looking at a small area of the board, roughly just his checking pawn, my king, his rook and his queen, and my confused thinking went something like "There are only two moves, after king takes I don't see anything immediately devastating but my king looks exposed there, his queen checks on h8 and he controls the file, whereas if I take with the queen my queen controls the file." Something shallow like that, not even considering his very next move, Rg2+ and wins.
So to sum up, the concrete results of declining stamina and concentration were scattered, completely inadequate calculation and the overlooking of the opponent's possibilities in a position where the result of game was in the balance.
Here's the post I wrote right after I got home from the game, (something I've never done before) a heartfelt expression of fatigue and frustration, not with the intention of excusing or alibiing my loss, but a genuine account of the way I felt at the time. I'm glad I gave credit to my opponent, where credit was due, because he played better and deservedly won; but I was just a little angry that this important game had been lost not because of any defects in my chess armory but because I hadn't been able to play up to the ability I knew I had. After all the work and planning and study, I hadn't been able to show what I was capable of.
Now that in my own long-winded fashion I've given some background and an example of the problem, in Part II we'll have a go at identifying what can be done about it.
Back already? Okay, first, I hope he doesn't mind my linking his very useful chart so that you can refer to it without jumping back and forth:
In the comments I suggested that it might be instructive to have the green boxes placed in between the "transfer" and "playing" boxes; as I said there:
[T]he green boxes (concentration, stamina and time management) almost act as a filter or "bottleneck" to showing the level of patterns, calculation and visualization (after transfer). So the green boxes might be placed in line with and after transfer; if they are all 100 percent "open" then the player's full strength is available (and this would be rare or impossible); the more any one of these physical/psychological factors is "constricted" the smaller percentage of strength is showing in the play on the board.
___________________________________________________
I've read a lot of chess books over the years (probably too many), played over master games and done tactical exercises (probably not enough) and yet I've seen very little specific, useful material in the chess literature on the important topics, the filters that attenuate your results, of concentration, stamina and time management.
Now these things are not totally neglected, but some of the advice is obvious and trite, ("Eat well, exercise and get enough sleep"), some is conflicting ("Don't get up from the board often, it takes time to refocus, but do get up and stretch, keep blood flowing to the brain"), and some is confusing ("don't study openings, but if by studying openings you get into a playable middlegame having saved time and energy for later, why, DO study openings!").
I'm going to use my game with Chris Harrington, mentioned above, as an illustration of how all of these factors affect the results of the game, because for our purposes here it's going to be only the results that count; "playing well" for most of the game, getting "good positions" and so on are for all practical purposes useless. The concentration, stamina and time management "boxes" are where playing well becomes playing poorly and good positions are turned into losses. I'll be focusing on these things from that perspective.
For reference, here's my game with Chris:
On the surface, here's a one-paragraph description of the game (from my perspective): We both played the opening by the book for 13 moves which left me 83 minutes for only 17 more moves; on move 21 he overlooked my tactical idea and I won a piece for two pawns with a "winning" (heh) position; on move 26 and 29 I don't play the good move Ne4 despite the fact that I looked at it, and lose most of my advantage; and after the time control at move 30 my play is pretty weak, my moves 33, 34 and especially 36 are all (?), meanwhile he plays well, knowing he's down material he activates his pieces against my draughty king position and takes advantage of the openings I give him to play a winning combination.
Under the surface: During the four days before the game my wife was working out of town and I had the entire responsibility for taking care of the home and our son, and though I got a decent amount of sleep the night before the game I had had less than adequate rest the two previous nights. As noted, I played the first 13 moves quickly but having plenty of time available I spent 7-12 minutes on several of the moves between 14 and 25, some of which could have been played more quickly, but I was sometimes looking at the same lines over and over, checking and rechecking since I was starting to feel tired and "vacant" and this led to even more fatigue. I felt pretty decent during the first part of the game, but even though my opponent was playing quite quickly (less than 50 minutes for the whole game) right around the critical point of move 26-30 I was already feeling dopey, though less than 2.5 hours had passed since the beginning of the game.
When we reached this position with White to make his 36th move:
I was sincerely trying my best, but I felt rather like there was a fog before my eyes; my focus was no longer on the whole board and my opponent's possibilities. As best I can remember I was looking at a small area of the board, roughly just his checking pawn, my king, his rook and his queen, and my confused thinking went something like "There are only two moves, after king takes I don't see anything immediately devastating but my king looks exposed there, his queen checks on h8 and he controls the file, whereas if I take with the queen my queen controls the file." Something shallow like that, not even considering his very next move, Rg2+ and wins.
So to sum up, the concrete results of declining stamina and concentration were scattered, completely inadequate calculation and the overlooking of the opponent's possibilities in a position where the result of game was in the balance.
Here's the post I wrote right after I got home from the game, (something I've never done before) a heartfelt expression of fatigue and frustration, not with the intention of excusing or alibiing my loss, but a genuine account of the way I felt at the time. I'm glad I gave credit to my opponent, where credit was due, because he played better and deservedly won; but I was just a little angry that this important game had been lost not because of any defects in my chess armory but because I hadn't been able to play up to the ability I knew I had. After all the work and planning and study, I hadn't been able to show what I was capable of.
Now that in my own long-winded fashion I've given some background and an example of the problem, in Part II we'll have a go at identifying what can be done about it.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Using "Computer Eyes" for Human Progress
A few fine posts by others have caused me to think more deeply about chess and computers lately--mostly from the point of view of my personal goal of improving my results against humans in tournament play. This goal was an important clarification when I wrote that post last July--it may be entirely coincidental, but since then my standard rating has climbed (if sometimes only slightly) in each tournament I've played. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with computers, but my point then was that cutting down or eliminating internet blitz, less opening study and more tactical training, and in general more mental focus and application of practical success psychology were the tickets to results, even if I did enjoy the blitz and delving into my favorite openings.
Anyway, the other chess bloggers referred to above have got me thinking about how best to apply computer models to my own stated goal of improving results against humans (and its equivalent, continuing my USCF rating's upward trend [and for that matter my standard FICS rating's]).
It started when Soapstone referred to a Dana Mackenzie post on Bronstein on Computers and Humans, which was followed by More on Computers and Humans. Then Wang advised "Step away from your computer!" and Drunknknite responded by Speaking up for Those Who Can't.
Somewhere along the line (ah yes, thanks Edwin Meyer!) I heard about FM Charles Hertan's Forcing Chess Moves: Using "Computer Eyes" to Improve Your Tactical Vision and read the sample generously provided, and I had a modest flash of insight about what my next steps need to be. (The excellent Phaderus commented on this post where I first mentioned the book, and had a lucid critique of the idea of trying to think like a computer, but wait a moment and we'll connect these dots to something hopefully useful)
I haven't seen the whole of Hertan's book, but the sample has some very thought-provoking ideas that bear directly on the current weaknesses in my game. It triggered a memory of Andy Soltis' book The Inner Game of Chess, and sure enough there is a chapter there entitled "Force"; it even includes one of the same examples (Fischer-Sherwin) given in the Hertan extract. But this is the part that really got me thinking:
"The first goal of any player aspiring to find more winning forcing moves in his/her games should be to CALCULATE TWO MOVES AHEAD WITH ABSOLUTE PRECISION."
Now that hit me pretty hard; do I currently calculate two moves ahead with absolute precision? Hmm...usually, but let's just look at the last game I posted; at least three times (moves 10, 30 and 35) I did not accurately calculate 2 moves (4 "ply") ahead, and this in a game I won! Hell's damn bells, two of them were advantageous captures that led directly to material gain and I didn't play them. I, you, we've all been told over and over, "Checks and captures, checks and captures..." meaning that we need to try and look at all checks and captures as a starting point for our calculations--if one of them wins, there's no need to search any further! I'm still not doing this with the consistency that will allow me to take on and defeat stronger players with any regularity.
In the Soltis book mentioned above he quotes World Champion M. Botvinnik saying after a loss to that he needed to perfect his calculation of three-move variations. Trying to think like a computer isn't exactly the answer, but modeling the computer's perfection in the calculation of two-move variations is already a step in the right direction. Instead of just "studying tactics" or doing exercises, I'm going to think about and research the best ways to do this and put them into practice. Maybe going over my own and other's game with only this in mind, all other considerations being ignored; maybe some of the mate-in-two problems that Hertan says he enjoys (and that can be surprisingly difficult to calculate with absolute precision).
Thinking and writing about this has in itself been good exercise, and I invite your ideas and comments on the subject.
Anyway, the other chess bloggers referred to above have got me thinking about how best to apply computer models to my own stated goal of improving results against humans (and its equivalent, continuing my USCF rating's upward trend [and for that matter my standard FICS rating's]).
It started when Soapstone referred to a Dana Mackenzie post on Bronstein on Computers and Humans, which was followed by More on Computers and Humans. Then Wang advised "Step away from your computer!" and Drunknknite responded by Speaking up for Those Who Can't.
Somewhere along the line (ah yes, thanks Edwin Meyer!) I heard about FM Charles Hertan's Forcing Chess Moves: Using "Computer Eyes" to Improve Your Tactical Vision and read the sample generously provided, and I had a modest flash of insight about what my next steps need to be. (The excellent Phaderus commented on this post where I first mentioned the book, and had a lucid critique of the idea of trying to think like a computer, but wait a moment and we'll connect these dots to something hopefully useful)
I haven't seen the whole of Hertan's book, but the sample has some very thought-provoking ideas that bear directly on the current weaknesses in my game. It triggered a memory of Andy Soltis' book The Inner Game of Chess, and sure enough there is a chapter there entitled "Force"; it even includes one of the same examples (Fischer-Sherwin) given in the Hertan extract. But this is the part that really got me thinking:
"The first goal of any player aspiring to find more winning forcing moves in his/her games should be to CALCULATE TWO MOVES AHEAD WITH ABSOLUTE PRECISION."
Now that hit me pretty hard; do I currently calculate two moves ahead with absolute precision? Hmm...usually, but let's just look at the last game I posted; at least three times (moves 10, 30 and 35) I did not accurately calculate 2 moves (4 "ply") ahead, and this in a game I won! Hell's damn bells, two of them were advantageous captures that led directly to material gain and I didn't play them. I, you, we've all been told over and over, "Checks and captures, checks and captures..." meaning that we need to try and look at all checks and captures as a starting point for our calculations--if one of them wins, there's no need to search any further! I'm still not doing this with the consistency that will allow me to take on and defeat stronger players with any regularity.
In the Soltis book mentioned above he quotes World Champion M. Botvinnik saying after a loss to that he needed to perfect his calculation of three-move variations. Trying to think like a computer isn't exactly the answer, but modeling the computer's perfection in the calculation of two-move variations is already a step in the right direction. Instead of just "studying tactics" or doing exercises, I'm going to think about and research the best ways to do this and put them into practice. Maybe going over my own and other's game with only this in mind, all other considerations being ignored; maybe some of the mate-in-two problems that Hertan says he enjoys (and that can be surprisingly difficult to calculate with absolute precision).
Thinking and writing about this has in itself been good exercise, and I invite your ideas and comments on the subject.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Quick Note on a Win
Back in the win column last night in the Reno CC Summer Swiss vs. Hadi Soltani (1646). With the black pieces I went back to the King's Indian and when he played an unusual fifth move (Bd2) I was able to get some advantage, eventually winning a pawn; but the play remained very complicated and I let most of my advantage slip, though he was still a little tied up. A few moves after the first time control (30/90, G/60) however, he made a mistake that led to him getting suddenly mated by my Rook and Knight.
So a good result against a fellow B-player, but on at least two occasions I didn't see a reply of his to one of my moves and that's not so good...if I'm not seeing these kinds of moves I'm not playing Real Chess at the level I'm looking for.
Now I've got a three-game backlog to post; sorry about that, but I'll get around to it SOON (yeah sure--ed.).
So a good result against a fellow B-player, but on at least two occasions I didn't see a reply of his to one of my moves and that's not so good...if I'm not seeing these kinds of moves I'm not playing Real Chess at the level I'm looking for.
Now I've got a three-game backlog to post; sorry about that, but I'll get around to it SOON (yeah sure--ed.).
Monday, June 11, 2007
Reno CC Summer Swiss June 7, 2007, R. Pearson-G. Fischer 0-1
Well I'm certainly falling a little behind in keeping the promise I made (to myself) to post all of my tournament games here; but to get started I can at least report that last Thursday I went down to defeat against George Fischer(1947), the Class A Champion of the Reno CC. Since George got edged out of qualifying for the Club Championship matches he's playing in the Swiss.
Losing to a player rated over 300 points above you is no disgrace, but when I post the score you'll see why I wasn't satisfied with my effort; as White the opening went 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bb7, and while my opening play was okay I just wasn't present enough in the moment of the game, if you know what I mean, I wasn't playing tough, fighting chess, and it was over in 30 moves.
I don't mind losing, really, but I do mind not being able to shut out the distractions, the non-chess things, and get down to playing Real Chess. Two weeks in a row I've, to some extent, just gone through the motions. And that's no formula for success in chess, or anything else.
Losing to a player rated over 300 points above you is no disgrace, but when I post the score you'll see why I wasn't satisfied with my effort; as White the opening went 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bb7, and while my opening play was okay I just wasn't present enough in the moment of the game, if you know what I mean, I wasn't playing tough, fighting chess, and it was over in 30 moves.
I don't mind losing, really, but I do mind not being able to shut out the distractions, the non-chess things, and get down to playing Real Chess. Two weeks in a row I've, to some extent, just gone through the motions. And that's no formula for success in chess, or anything else.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Rd. 5 Reno CC Ch. Qualifier, Bayati-Pearson 1-0
I was defeated by Arkia Bayati last night in the final round of the Reno CC Ch. Qualifier and thereby missed qualifying for the championship matches. I will apparently advance my rating by about four points to approximately 1612, as a result of the tournament.
This was a very encouraging game in some ways, but given the competitive stakes and the way it went down the outcome was also very disappointing. A. Bayati was the 2005 club champion, was rated well over 2000 USCF until recently (currently listed 1953) and according to this even has a FIDE rating of 2113. Yet through good, careful play as Black I was able to match him for the first 30 moves and obtain a perfectly even ending with two bishops and six symmetrical pawns for each side...then with minimal calculation I moved my King toward the center and allowed a short tactical sequence that completely wrecked my position. It went something like "Well he has this check, but I just go Ke8, continuing toward the center, and I'm fine," but then he had a check with the other Bishop, driving my King further from the Kingside pawns, which dropped off.
So I'm not pleased with the result, but I'm encouraged that I can play with anybody around here if I just play "Real" Chess (Dan Heisman) EVERY move, and not just 97 percent of the time. In this game I played 30 consecutive "Real" moves and then 1 "Hope Chess" move, and that was it. It's extremely tough to keep it up, move after move for an entire five hours if necessary, but I know I can do it, and I will. (h/t Secrets of Grandpatzer Chess - see this post of his for more valuable thoughts on this topic).
I think I have good positional knowledge, and enough calculating ability and pattern recognition, to go a long way up the ratings ladder if I'm able to be really, truly consistent, each move through every game, no matter how tired, the atmosphere, the opponent's rating or anything. No human, not even a grandmaster, can truly do it 100.00 percent of the time but I gotta move from the 97 percent of last night to about 99.8 (about one loose, sleepwalking blunder every 10 games. I don't know if more than that is humanly possible).
I'll get the game posted within a day or two.
BTW, I'm starting a new Label called "Real Chess" as it's what I need to focus on more than anything else!
This was a very encouraging game in some ways, but given the competitive stakes and the way it went down the outcome was also very disappointing. A. Bayati was the 2005 club champion, was rated well over 2000 USCF until recently (currently listed 1953) and according to this even has a FIDE rating of 2113. Yet through good, careful play as Black I was able to match him for the first 30 moves and obtain a perfectly even ending with two bishops and six symmetrical pawns for each side...then with minimal calculation I moved my King toward the center and allowed a short tactical sequence that completely wrecked my position. It went something like "Well he has this check, but I just go Ke8, continuing toward the center, and I'm fine," but then he had a check with the other Bishop, driving my King further from the Kingside pawns, which dropped off.
So I'm not pleased with the result, but I'm encouraged that I can play with anybody around here if I just play "Real" Chess (Dan Heisman) EVERY move, and not just 97 percent of the time. In this game I played 30 consecutive "Real" moves and then 1 "Hope Chess" move, and that was it. It's extremely tough to keep it up, move after move for an entire five hours if necessary, but I know I can do it, and I will. (h/t Secrets of Grandpatzer Chess - see this post of his for more valuable thoughts on this topic).
I think I have good positional knowledge, and enough calculating ability and pattern recognition, to go a long way up the ratings ladder if I'm able to be really, truly consistent, each move through every game, no matter how tired, the atmosphere, the opponent's rating or anything. No human, not even a grandmaster, can truly do it 100.00 percent of the time but I gotta move from the 97 percent of last night to about 99.8 (about one loose, sleepwalking blunder every 10 games. I don't know if more than that is humanly possible).
I'll get the game posted within a day or two.
BTW, I'm starting a new Label called "Real Chess" as it's what I need to focus on more than anything else!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)