In the chess blog kingdom, I finally get around to adding Takchess and Lousy@Chess, two blogs that thoroughly deserve your visit.
In the "Fine Non-chess" list, added Eternity Road, where I'm a (fortunate) co-contributor, and High Heels, where Fetiche posts her uniquely entertaining take on high-heeled footwear, and life, when she's not busy with business and playing brilliant chess.
My chess blog list is getting a bit unwieldy, and soon I'm going to have to delete those who haven't posted in 100 days or so. We're all busy with "Real Life" but throw your readers a bone every month or two, people.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
H. Soltani-R. Pearson 01.27.08 1-0
Here is the game I played and described on Sunday. As sometimes happens, I'm having trouble in Chess Publisher getting the annotations to work, so I'll post them separately above the game replayer. Sorry for the inconvenience.
To answer a few points raised by by wonderful commenters:
Tanc and LEP: Really, truly, I'm not afraid of my dentist, or dentists in general. I had a perfect 3-0 record against him going into the game and when I began seeing him as my dentist he did a super job. Whether there was a subconscious fear for next time if I won yet again--well, by definition I wouldn't know about it. I must say, though, he did have one home field advantage; his parrot. He had this big African Gray that barked like a dog, talked trash and made various sounds from the other room during the game. Now, I figured that he was distracted just as much as I, but after further consideration I suppose that he's so used to the cacophony that he just tuned it out!
Fetiche: I do have some regrets about not sticking to my beloved King's Indian Defense for this game, having won twice with against this opponent. I've been working on the Tarrasch for awhile as an alternate and decided to try it out, but as you can see I started making stuff up on move 5; so I don't consider it that much of a success. I'm not sure whether to keep it as an occasional variant for selected opponents or stick to one thing...at least any future foe who reads this will have a little doubt.
Here are the comments, then the game:
To answer a few points raised by by wonderful commenters:
Tanc and LEP: Really, truly, I'm not afraid of my dentist, or dentists in general. I had a perfect 3-0 record against him going into the game and when I began seeing him as my dentist he did a super job. Whether there was a subconscious fear for next time if I won yet again--well, by definition I wouldn't know about it. I must say, though, he did have one home field advantage; his parrot. He had this big African Gray that barked like a dog, talked trash and made various sounds from the other room during the game. Now, I figured that he was distracted just as much as I, but after further consideration I suppose that he's so used to the cacophony that he just tuned it out!
Fetiche: I do have some regrets about not sticking to my beloved King's Indian Defense for this game, having won twice with against this opponent. I've been working on the Tarrasch for awhile as an alternate and decided to try it out, but as you can see I started making stuff up on move 5; so I don't consider it that much of a success. I'm not sure whether to keep it as an occasional variant for selected opponents or stick to one thing...at least any future foe who reads this will have a little doubt.
Here are the comments, then the game:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. dxc5 {One can't study every variation--and I hadn't spent much time on this one} Bxc5 {The main line is d5, and I knew that, but I hadn't looked at it formally at all. I decided to sacrifice a pawn to win some time for development and, hopefully, attack} 6. Qxd5 Qb6 7. e3 {I think this is best} Be6 {Nf6 is more flexible} 8. Qg5 Ne7 {I seriously considered Kf8, but became strangely attracted to sacrificing more pawns--Black does gain a lot of time, but is it full compensation?} 9. Qxg7 Rg8 10. Qxh7 Nc6 {Black has shed three pawns, and probably has compensation for two; but White will have to defend well to avoid the many shoals} 11. Qc2 {11. a3 0-0-0 12. b4 might be more accurate, now the queen can be harassed some more} 0-0-0 12. Bd2 Nb4 13. Qc1 Rxd2? {Too much of a good thing! Nd3+ 14. Bxd3 Rxd3 keeps some reasonable compensation. I guess I was "playing the role" of Herr Anderssen circa 1851} 14. Qxd2 Rd8 15. Qc1 Kb8 {Probably as good as anything, and rather artistic--but objectively Black doesn't have enough for his big material investment} 16. a3! Nd3+ 17. Bxd3 Rxd3 18. Nge2 Nf5 {The only hope is to bring in every piece} 19. b4? {19. Na4! Qa5 20. b4 Qxa4 21. Qxc5 should be winning} Bxe3! {Gives a puncher's chance, anyway} 20. fxe3 Nxe3 21. Nf4 Rd6 22. Ra2?? {Most other moves maintain a winning position!} Bxa2 23. Ke2 {probably best} Bc4+? {Ng4! 25. Qg1 Qc6 and Black should win} 24. Kf3 Nf5 25. Re1 Nh4+ 26. Kg3 {and logical now is Nf5+ with a probable repetition. After the game my opponent said he expected that. Instead...} Qf2+?? {Perfect chess blindness. I had planned it the previous move; for some reason I thought this square was covered.} 27. Kxf2 1-0
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Losing to My Dentist
So I finally got the chance to play Hadi Soltani (my dentist, as referenced here). He had to postpone our game a week and a half ago so I agreed to play him at his home this afternoon. It was strange days indeed...
On the Black side of a QGD Tarrasch Defense I started sacrificing material on move 5, one two three pawns, then an Exchange; by move 13 it was just crazy, completely out of control. Not my usual style at all, but I had a big attack for some big sacrifices. He kept finding moves that held on and by move 20 the investment was a whole rook, but he had one knight developed and I had a whole army. Finally the pressure got to him and he hung a rook, leaving me one pawn down still with an attack and then...I hung my frickin' queen! Sheeeeeesh, just moved it where he could take it, it was a killer shot except for that one small detail.
I haven't done much of this bad blundering lately, but at least the rest of the game was a real slugfest--I have no idea what was sound and what wasn't, this game needs a lot of analysis, I'll post ASAP.
On the Black side of a QGD Tarrasch Defense I started sacrificing material on move 5, one two three pawns, then an Exchange; by move 13 it was just crazy, completely out of control. Not my usual style at all, but I had a big attack for some big sacrifices. He kept finding moves that held on and by move 20 the investment was a whole rook, but he had one knight developed and I had a whole army. Finally the pressure got to him and he hung a rook, leaving me one pawn down still with an attack and then...I hung my frickin' queen! Sheeeeeesh, just moved it where he could take it, it was a killer shot except for that one small detail.
I haven't done much of this bad blundering lately, but at least the rest of the game was a real slugfest--I have no idea what was sound and what wasn't, this game needs a lot of analysis, I'll post ASAP.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Miscellany
Instead of doing several brief, disconnected posts here are my latest thoughts in one neat package:
I was pleased that several readers commented with their disagreements regarding my list of the 10 greatest chess players of all time. Some follow-up comments from me--the rankings are subjective, of course, so it's my personal idiosyncratic list; but for background, R. Fischer is at #4 only because of the brevity of his international career. If he had played on at that level for another 10-15 years he would be neck-and-neck with Kasparov for #1. One of the great difficulties of comparing players of different eras is that they play so many more tournaments with just top players these days, compared to less frequent "mixed" tournaments prior to the 1980s. Steinitz and Lasker went through long stretches with no tournament play at all. Morphy was unique in both the brilliance and brevity of his career, so it is very difficult to compare him with others. Kramnik's defeat of Kasparov in a match was a big reason he made it, and Anand has consistently performed at the very top for about 20 years, so that was my reasoning for making them #9 and 10. But all this is subject to enjoyable debate. It was difficult not to find a place for Smyslov, Korchnoi, Steinitz and Morphy, but there could only be 10 in the top 10, after all...
I had a nice bump in traffic when Mark Weeks over at chess.about.com listed me in his 2007 Chess Blog Awards and it was also picked up by Susan Polgar's Chess Blog. I'm very pleased that Mr. Weeks found 27 of my 2007 posts to be worthy of (any) attention. Thanks!
Mark also has a post at Chess for All Ages beginning a series comparing Fischer's (My 60 Memorable Games) and Kasparov's (My Great Predecessors IV) comments on 18 games from the former book. I look forward to seeing these, since differences of opinion make for the most interesting annotations.
I was also very pleasantly surprised when Francis W. Porretto published my game against Vern Young (my post here) on his excellent (and heavyweight) blog Eternity Road, which is dedicated to philosophy, politics, religion, the survival of Western Civilization and, occasionally, chess. Fran is an enthusiast (and mentor to Fetiche, [a game of hers is here]) and in general a Renaissance man, and I thank him for taking the time to publish and annotate the game.
Chessloser speculates that vampires are awesome at chess. I find his reasoning totally convincing.
Finally, obligatory chess-related photograph:
Make of it what you will and have a great night.
I was pleased that several readers commented with their disagreements regarding my list of the 10 greatest chess players of all time. Some follow-up comments from me--the rankings are subjective, of course, so it's my personal idiosyncratic list; but for background, R. Fischer is at #4 only because of the brevity of his international career. If he had played on at that level for another 10-15 years he would be neck-and-neck with Kasparov for #1. One of the great difficulties of comparing players of different eras is that they play so many more tournaments with just top players these days, compared to less frequent "mixed" tournaments prior to the 1980s. Steinitz and Lasker went through long stretches with no tournament play at all. Morphy was unique in both the brilliance and brevity of his career, so it is very difficult to compare him with others. Kramnik's defeat of Kasparov in a match was a big reason he made it, and Anand has consistently performed at the very top for about 20 years, so that was my reasoning for making them #9 and 10. But all this is subject to enjoyable debate. It was difficult not to find a place for Smyslov, Korchnoi, Steinitz and Morphy, but there could only be 10 in the top 10, after all...
I had a nice bump in traffic when Mark Weeks over at chess.about.com listed me in his 2007 Chess Blog Awards and it was also picked up by Susan Polgar's Chess Blog. I'm very pleased that Mr. Weeks found 27 of my 2007 posts to be worthy of (any) attention. Thanks!
Mark also has a post at Chess for All Ages beginning a series comparing Fischer's (My 60 Memorable Games) and Kasparov's (My Great Predecessors IV) comments on 18 games from the former book. I look forward to seeing these, since differences of opinion make for the most interesting annotations.
I was also very pleasantly surprised when Francis W. Porretto published my game against Vern Young (my post here) on his excellent (and heavyweight) blog Eternity Road, which is dedicated to philosophy, politics, religion, the survival of Western Civilization and, occasionally, chess. Fran is an enthusiast (and mentor to Fetiche, [a game of hers is here]) and in general a Renaissance man, and I thank him for taking the time to publish and annotate the game.
Chessloser speculates that vampires are awesome at chess. I find his reasoning totally convincing.
Finally, obligatory chess-related photograph:
Make of it what you will and have a great night.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Controversy Corner
I'll be gone on another trip through Monday, not sure if I'll have a chance to blog any, so here's something that I hope will spur some controversy and commentary over the weekend; I had recently linked back to an old post on The Greatest, wherein I identified my choices for the greatest chess players ever, in certain categories.
Now, for your edification and especially your criticism, my ordered list of The Top 10 Chess Players of All Time, using the following criteria: 1) Their accomplishments as players, that is, results in tournaments and matches; 2) Relative dominance over their contemporaries for at least a few years; 3) Longevity at the top; 4) Advancement of the art of chess through the example of their play. That these criteria are based partly on subjective judgment makes it all the more fun to debate, of course. How to compare different eras? Subjective!
Other notes--I considered leaving off players who are still active, but a couple deserve to be on here just for what they've done so far, so they might move up over the coming years. I also considered a brief paragraph of justification for the inclusion of and order of the players, but it's more fun if you have to speculate about my reasons and provide your own when telling me how full of it I am. So, here is the bare list:
1. Kasparov
2. Capablanca
3. Karpov
4. Fischer
5. Alekhine
6. Botvinnik
7. Lasker
8. Tal
9. Kramnik
10. Anand
Please share your differences in the comments!
(ADDENDUM: I understand Fischer has passed away, the news is all over the MSM and chess blogosphere; I'm saddened that he's dead, of course, and also that much of his titanic talent and intellect seemingly went to waste over the last three decades).
Now, for your edification and especially your criticism, my ordered list of The Top 10 Chess Players of All Time, using the following criteria: 1) Their accomplishments as players, that is, results in tournaments and matches; 2) Relative dominance over their contemporaries for at least a few years; 3) Longevity at the top; 4) Advancement of the art of chess through the example of their play. That these criteria are based partly on subjective judgment makes it all the more fun to debate, of course. How to compare different eras? Subjective!
Other notes--I considered leaving off players who are still active, but a couple deserve to be on here just for what they've done so far, so they might move up over the coming years. I also considered a brief paragraph of justification for the inclusion of and order of the players, but it's more fun if you have to speculate about my reasons and provide your own when telling me how full of it I am. So, here is the bare list:
1. Kasparov
2. Capablanca
3. Karpov
4. Fischer
5. Alekhine
6. Botvinnik
7. Lasker
8. Tal
9. Kramnik
10. Anand
Please share your differences in the comments!
(ADDENDUM: I understand Fischer has passed away, the news is all over the MSM and chess blogosphere; I'm saddened that he's dead, of course, and also that much of his titanic talent and intellect seemingly went to waste over the last three decades).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)