Just arrived home from the final round of the Reno CC Ch. Qualifier, where I lost to Chris Harrington (1539) aka ChargingKing, and thus failed to qualify. As White in another King's Indian Four Pawns Attack I played the opening pretty well, pushed the center pawns and won a piece for two pawns--but my king was pretty open, he counterattacked, did some good calculation and won.
I'm very, very tired. Probably there was a winning move for me in there somewhere, but as usual my play wasn't as good as the game dragged on. I'm done with late-night tournament chess for at least six weeks. I'm going to kibbitz at the Far West Open next week and just enjoy the Tournament of the LEPers for a while. I'm really coming to like the G/15 + 30 sec. time control; I don't get tired, it's still pretty good quality chess and it's a great bunch of folks to play and chat with.
I'm sure the hunger for serious chess will return after a break, but right now I just want to get some sleep.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Games From Recent Events
I think it was the British Chess Magazine (BCM) that had (has?) a column every month with the "Games From Recent Events" heading, and I always liked it, it's rather laconic, and laconic is me all over; so I lift it and use it here.
Since my last report, on Thursday night in the Reno CC Ch. Qualifier Vern Young smacked me down to get what was to him no doubt sweet revenge for this game and this one in the Class B Ch. This time he had White, and switched to the 5. h3 variation of the King's Indian. Instead of what's apparently the right plan in this line, preparing the f5 push, I decided to go for the queenside advance with b5, he stifled it pretty well and I never got it in, I loosened up my position in the center with e4 and he basically occupied the holes I'd left behind. My desperation bishop sac was refuted with a couple of accurate moves on his part and I resigned on move 28 in the face of mate in two.
Happier news from yesterday afternoon as I won in Round 4 of the Tournament of the LEPers against Tacticus Maximus, otherwise known as Glenn Wilson of Houston Chess. Glenn had White and tried an unusual line (1. e4 d5 2. h3), I was able to get a lead in development and play a tactical shot or two that won material, and it was 0-1 in 27 moves. He said he'd be posting that one fairly soon (UPDATE: it's here).
Meanwhile, I'm a few games behind in keeping my promise (to myself and the readers) to post all tournament games, so let's have a look at Pearson-Mauricio Amaya, Round 2 of the Club Ch. Qualifier. As I said previously, it was a tough game.
Since my last report, on Thursday night in the Reno CC Ch. Qualifier Vern Young smacked me down to get what was to him no doubt sweet revenge for this game and this one in the Class B Ch. This time he had White, and switched to the 5. h3 variation of the King's Indian. Instead of what's apparently the right plan in this line, preparing the f5 push, I decided to go for the queenside advance with b5, he stifled it pretty well and I never got it in, I loosened up my position in the center with e4 and he basically occupied the holes I'd left behind. My desperation bishop sac was refuted with a couple of accurate moves on his part and I resigned on move 28 in the face of mate in two.
Happier news from yesterday afternoon as I won in Round 4 of the Tournament of the LEPers against Tacticus Maximus, otherwise known as Glenn Wilson of Houston Chess. Glenn had White and tried an unusual line (1. e4 d5 2. h3), I was able to get a lead in development and play a tactical shot or two that won material, and it was 0-1 in 27 moves. He said he'd be posting that one fairly soon (UPDATE: it's here).
Meanwhile, I'm a few games behind in keeping my promise (to myself and the readers) to post all tournament games, so let's have a look at Pearson-Mauricio Amaya, Round 2 of the Club Ch. Qualifier. As I said previously, it was a tough game.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Some Must Reads
Blue Devil Knight--more great video book reviews! Humor, music, and calling a piece of crap a piece of crap, and not a piece of rose-scented excrement.
Phaderus--some superb advice on how to enjoy winning a won game, even when the opponent plays on in a hopeless position.
The utterly inimitable chessloser--a tournament report like no other, including Blunderprone, pizza, Grandmasters, strippers and more wins than losses! Plus, he's coming to Reno again soon!
Yay!
Dana Mackenzie--ratings, Churchill and democracy.
drunknknite--looks like he'll be an Expert in the near future, and one reason why is the great work he puts in on his own games and annotations.
Wang--rages against the machine. He's showing lots of improvement via "old-fashioned" methods that don't involve analysis by Fritzie.
Grandpatzer--does some superb endgame analysis.
Soapstone--wonders what he really wants from chess, as most of us do sometimes.
Loomis--punishes some mixed systems by White in the Sicilian with beautifully precise chess.
There is so much good content being provided us these days! Hit some links, do some searches and you never know what kind of enjoyable and instructive material you might come across.
Phaderus--some superb advice on how to enjoy winning a won game, even when the opponent plays on in a hopeless position.
The utterly inimitable chessloser--a tournament report like no other, including Blunderprone, pizza, Grandmasters, strippers and more wins than losses! Plus, he's coming to Reno again soon!
Yay!
Dana Mackenzie--ratings, Churchill and democracy.
drunknknite--looks like he'll be an Expert in the near future, and one reason why is the great work he puts in on his own games and annotations.
Wang--rages against the machine. He's showing lots of improvement via "old-fashioned" methods that don't involve analysis by Fritzie.
Grandpatzer--does some superb endgame analysis.
Soapstone--wonders what he really wants from chess, as most of us do sometimes.
Loomis--punishes some mixed systems by White in the Sicilian with beautifully precise chess.
There is so much good content being provided us these days! Hit some links, do some searches and you never know what kind of enjoyable and instructive material you might come across.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Catching Up With My Games
Thankfully, I figured out what was wrong with my Chess Publisher 2 work--when the "Tournament" field has too many characters everything gets screwy (2 boards, how weird!).
So that having been conquered, my game in Round 1 of the Reno CC Ch. Qualifier is below. Meanwhile, last Saturday in Round 3 of the Tournament of the LEPers Polly of Castling Queenside inflicted my first loss of the tournament. One of those games where I just never felt comfortable, didn't "have any ideas" and she pummeled me! She posted it here so just go visit her place to witness the carnage.
On a happier note:
So that having been conquered, my game in Round 1 of the Reno CC Ch. Qualifier is below. Meanwhile, last Saturday in Round 3 of the Tournament of the LEPers Polly of Castling Queenside inflicted my first loss of the tournament. One of those games where I just never felt comfortable, didn't "have any ideas" and she pummeled me! She posted it here so just go visit her place to witness the carnage.
On a happier note:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)