Last night's game at the Reno Chess Club marked an important turning point in my chess career.
I was originally scheduled to play Eric Shoemaker (aka Green Hornet) in the 7th and final round of the Club Ch. Swiss Qualifier. However, when I was all set up (score sheet even filled out and sitting across from him) the Director asked if I would consider dropping out of the round; several people who didn't have a shot at qualifying had not shown up, and the bye might have to go to Vern Young, possibly affecting his chances. I really wanted to get a game but I could see the logic of it, so I said I'd consider it, especially if someone else would play me a rated game. After a bit more delay they found me an opponent, Hadi Soltani, for a "rated side game." Okay, fine.
Now instead of having White as originally against Shoemaker, I drew Black and we played into a King's Indian as he and I have before, this time a sort of Gligoric Variation. I got a bind on the queenside and played some pretty artistic positional chess, which culminated in my coming out two pawns ahead in a rook ending. He had been ahead on the clock quite a bit, but now of course he started playing slower trying to find chances, and the game dragged on; everyone reading this knows how it can take many moves to make progress in this kind of position (rook and far back g- and h-pawns vs. rook). And the game dragged on; by now we each had 7 or 8 minutes left to sudden death, and due to the late start it was well after midnight, it looked like it would still take many moves to win the position, I had been enjoying the process, mostly, but at some point it occurred to me that "man, I'm still sitting here and I've got to get up and get ready for work in less than 5 and 1/2 hours!" and that just struck me as ridiculous, you know?
And a few minutes later I just hung the effing rook, just moved it to a square where he could take it, there went the game, it was effing embarrassing, there were some other players still there, by now almost all the other games were finished, people were calculating tie breaks for the qualifiers out loud nearby and which kind of says where this game fell in the grand scheme of things, he snatched the rook off with a decisive motion, I resigned and I had a moment of acute embarrassment, a few players had been watching and of course I had been exposed as an idiot, a patzer, a pretender and a fool, a clown, a dolt/dope/dumbkopf, a fish, a guppie who had made a mistake that the average 8-year-old rated 1000 wouldn't make. All the ratings gains I'd painfully made since last summer were now up in smoke, all the tactical books and the chess blogging and the study had produced this.
And then the clouds, so to speak, parted.
Before I walked out of the club I realized that this was the last five-hour game of chess I would play, ever. No more bleary Fridays at work on a few hours sleep after unwinding from the intensities of the Thursday evening death-struggle; no more worries about rating points. Screw rating points, the game was probably a lot more fun and less stressful when no one cared, they just played to win.
AS far as I'm concerned, I'm never playing another game of chess longer than three hours, max (G/90). A lot of clubs (Kenilworth, for example) play all their championship games at this time control. Seems about right for me, and I'm only talking about me here. The Reno Chess Club has a lot of nice people and a lot of good players; apparently there is a long-term tradition and consensus that 30/90, G/60 is what the most people want for rated tournaments, which is what most club nights are devoted to. Unlike some clubs there aren't many quickplays, blitz nights or other types of events. That's cool, but at this point I'm opting out.
What I really like are games that last 1-2 hours, with some increment so there's no sudden death. The first Tournament of the LEPers used 15 +30, fast but fun and most games take about an hour. For blitz I like 2 5, you need never lose on time and a few really quick moves can buy some decent thinking time when needed.
One more thing, on this post a few days ago Francis W. Porretto (Eternity Road) commented:
Robert, are you sure that elevating your rating is that important to you?
I think at 56 I'm a little older than you are, so our positions in life aren't exactly parallel. But maybe this perspective will be worth it to you anyway.
As you move into the second half of your life, you'll find that it's more important to preserve your pleasures than to maximize your achievements.
I teach chess to young folks. I don't get anything for it other than the pleasure of having conveyed a bit of knowledge to someone who wants it. Those kids are delighted to learn, and eager to make use of their knowledge in combat, just as I was when my uncle Karl (an international master in his day) deigned to teach me something about the game.
It took a while, but I learned soon enough that tournament results and USCF ratings are less enduring than the sense of heightened understanding. The results and ratings are ephemeral; the sense of understanding is something you can enjoy forever.
These days, I don't enjoy playing the game nearly as much as I enjoy introducing new players to its mysteries. Not many of them ask to see my tournament results, or ask what my rating was when I stopped playing competitively. They're just happy to have the attention of a "gray head" who has some knowledge to impart.
Whatever you decide to do, stay with it only as long as it makes you happy.
Yeah, I've found these words of wisdom bouncing around inside my thick skull from time to time ever since I read them. Everyone has different wants, needs and goals in an endeavor like chess; for the last two years I've been trying to get back to my "glory days" in the 1800s USCF, I've enjoyed playing and analyzing and blogging, I've especially enjoyed reading about others' chess experiences and triumphs and struggles, I still enjoy all of that, but I'm officially out of the grind-my-way-to-A-player business, I'm gonna quit formal studying with all the weekly goals, timetables and problem sets, I'm gonna play me some chess, especially at FICS, definitely in the next Tournament of the LEPers (YOU, get over there and sign up), and maybe someone wants to play a rated match at the Club at a fairly quick time control eventually, I'm up for it.
I'm gonna keep playing with my three-year-old, he's already learned quite a bit thanks to the Windows built-in chess game that shows all the legal moves, he has a tendency to move his king right up the board but hey, there's still time to get him playing the Catalan...
Chess ain't supposed to be work. It's a game. Chessloser knows this, even when he's at a tournament. I'd forgotten for awhile. If it took a "most embarrassing moment" in chess and the loss of some rating points, so be it.
Showing posts with label Ratings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ratings. Show all posts
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Ze Plan Boss, Ze Plan or, C-SCAMP (Part I)
dk-transformation has made his public.
Soapstone has Training Progress Status Reports.
And now, by popular demand...
Robert Pearson's Chess Status Check and Master Plan (C-SCAMP)!
dk has items on his spreadsheet going up to Jan. 1, 2012; my time frame is more modest, as I plan to present a "where I'm at now" status check and then goals for the next 60 days.
Current Standings:
1. USCF (1650) (Goal for this year was 1700, I'll probably only have three more rated games by Jan. 1 so we will see; but better than still at 1600 floor!).
2. Red Hot Pawn (1743) (as "Newvictorian" - Online correspondence site; 1743 is my highest ever rating and pretty respectable, but I'm winding down my games here as I believe the time spent could be better used on other training exercises. What would really be useful is to analyze and present some of the games here).
3. Chess Tactics Server ("RobertNV" 1499, 73.1%, 1475 tries) (I enjoy using this very much, and I think it's good practice but I try to do everything quick for rating points, and I am adding chesstempo, where one can do problems at "standard" with no timing, or "blitz" like at CTS. I think both can be useful training, and I'll still be visiting CTS and attempting to raise my rating and, especially, percentage correct, in the coming period).
4. Free Internet Chess Server - FICS ("RLP" I can't access my stats from this computer, but (corrected - thanks dk) 1265 blitz, 1243 lightning (0 4), 1677 standard. I have wasted too much of my chess time playing blitz here, usually squeezing it in late at night [often the only time available] and recently blowing 70 rating points in about 90 minutes. I don't think I'm getting anything out of these games except opening practice, so no more 3 0, etc. I'm intrigued by 0 4 and dk's achievements in that field, so I might indulge occasionally. In future, however, mainly at least 15 5 time controls against best players available for serious practice games).
Well, I've already burned all my blogging time for now and must go prepare for a real live old-fashioned face-to-face game of chess at the Reno Chess Club tonight. Details of next 60-day study plan to follow.
Soapstone has Training Progress Status Reports.
And now, by popular demand...
Robert Pearson's Chess Status Check and Master Plan (C-SCAMP)!
dk has items on his spreadsheet going up to Jan. 1, 2012; my time frame is more modest, as I plan to present a "where I'm at now" status check and then goals for the next 60 days.
Current Standings:
1. USCF (1650) (Goal for this year was 1700, I'll probably only have three more rated games by Jan. 1 so we will see; but better than still at 1600 floor!).
2. Red Hot Pawn (1743) (as "Newvictorian" - Online correspondence site; 1743 is my highest ever rating and pretty respectable, but I'm winding down my games here as I believe the time spent could be better used on other training exercises. What would really be useful is to analyze and present some of the games here).
3. Chess Tactics Server ("RobertNV" 1499, 73.1%, 1475 tries) (I enjoy using this very much, and I think it's good practice but I try to do everything quick for rating points, and I am adding chesstempo, where one can do problems at "standard" with no timing, or "blitz" like at CTS. I think both can be useful training, and I'll still be visiting CTS and attempting to raise my rating and, especially, percentage correct, in the coming period).
4. Free Internet Chess Server - FICS ("RLP" I can't access my stats from this computer, but (corrected - thanks dk) 1265 blitz, 1243 lightning (0 4), 1677 standard. I have wasted too much of my chess time playing blitz here, usually squeezing it in late at night [often the only time available] and recently blowing 70 rating points in about 90 minutes. I don't think I'm getting anything out of these games except opening practice, so no more 3 0, etc. I'm intrigued by 0 4 and dk's achievements in that field, so I might indulge occasionally. In future, however, mainly at least 15 5 time controls against best players available for serious practice games).
Well, I've already burned all my blogging time for now and must go prepare for a real live old-fashioned face-to-face game of chess at the Reno Chess Club tonight. Details of next 60-day study plan to follow.
Monday, October 15, 2007
My Western States Open: An Epic Struggle for the Ages
Hey, when you have your own blog you get to pick the titles!
Perhaps it wasn't quite that dramatic, but as a matter of fact all the plans I had made regarding scheduling, preparing, having some relaxation between rounds, etc. basically went completely by the boards, I barely made it into the tournament, had to takes byes in Rounds 1 and 2, got swatted like a bug in Round 3; and yet, and yet...by the time Round 6 ended I'd scored wins in Round 4 and 5 and an honorable draw in Round 6, made an 1800 performance for the tournament and picked up about 40 rating points to get to around 1650.
And, I got to spend some supremely enjoyable time with chessloser and his lovely and talented wife, which was a much finer experience than the chess playing itself. The series of mishaps and emergencies that almost caused me to miss the tournament probably deserve their own post--chessloser and wife definitely deserve their own post. These will follow, but right now I'll just briefly report on the games in my own inimitable "narrative" fashion--I'll annotate and post them separately, as well. Hell, the next six posts will probably be about the tournament--anyway:
Game 1 (Round 3)--I show up not as rested or prepared as I would like, but happy that I got to play at all. The opponent is a young guy sporting a 1711 rating; as White, he plays 1. e4, I go Center-Counter, he gets a strong pawn center but I think I'm okay, then on move 22 he shows good tactical skill, plays d6 to divert me, blows open the kingside and I resign on move 32.
One thing I noticed about this tournament that was very good, though, is that I didn't get too high or too low, really did a pretty good job of just playing chess, not worrying too much about who was better, what might have happened earlier in the game, etc. So:
Game 2 (Round 4)--I play Black again, against a senior citizen from Vegas rated 1700. He plays 1. g4 (and as it turns out, all my opening knowledge is basically useless for the rest of the tournament). I think he has an edge around move 20, at move 30 he offers a draw even though I'm a little low on time (17 minutes for 11 moves), I sense some weakness, refuse, and I outplay him, go two pawns ahead, then on move 38 he tries a desperation trap, I play a cute move to avoid it and he resigns.
Game 3 (Round 5)--Middle-aged guy from Oakland (1681) shows up 10 minutes late looking a little bleary, I have White, go 1. d4 and his first 8 moves are...(wait for it)...h6, a6, e6, d6, Qd7, f6, Qf7, c6; I know this is a "Hippo" or some damned thing, I do my best not to go nuts, and he somehow wiggles around to an acceptable if slightly inferior position with both sides castled 0-0-0, I have some pressure, on move 29 he thinks for 26 minutes and plays a move that I thought was bad--it was, six moves later he's looking at mate in 2--resigns.
Game 4 (Round 6)--Slightly younger guy from Texas (1753), I'm Black for the third time in four games, he avoids my King's Indian Defense and plays the "Barry Attack," I respond sensibly and don't get intimidated by his kingside pawn storm, arrange to block things permanently there. He offers a draw on move 25, any advantage I have is microscopic, so to finish a very good tournament for me--draw agreed.
Enough for now, more to come.
Perhaps it wasn't quite that dramatic, but as a matter of fact all the plans I had made regarding scheduling, preparing, having some relaxation between rounds, etc. basically went completely by the boards, I barely made it into the tournament, had to takes byes in Rounds 1 and 2, got swatted like a bug in Round 3; and yet, and yet...by the time Round 6 ended I'd scored wins in Round 4 and 5 and an honorable draw in Round 6, made an 1800 performance for the tournament and picked up about 40 rating points to get to around 1650.
And, I got to spend some supremely enjoyable time with chessloser and his lovely and talented wife, which was a much finer experience than the chess playing itself. The series of mishaps and emergencies that almost caused me to miss the tournament probably deserve their own post--chessloser and wife definitely deserve their own post. These will follow, but right now I'll just briefly report on the games in my own inimitable "narrative" fashion--I'll annotate and post them separately, as well. Hell, the next six posts will probably be about the tournament--anyway:
Game 1 (Round 3)--I show up not as rested or prepared as I would like, but happy that I got to play at all. The opponent is a young guy sporting a 1711 rating; as White, he plays 1. e4, I go Center-Counter, he gets a strong pawn center but I think I'm okay, then on move 22 he shows good tactical skill, plays d6 to divert me, blows open the kingside and I resign on move 32.
One thing I noticed about this tournament that was very good, though, is that I didn't get too high or too low, really did a pretty good job of just playing chess, not worrying too much about who was better, what might have happened earlier in the game, etc. So:
Game 2 (Round 4)--I play Black again, against a senior citizen from Vegas rated 1700. He plays 1. g4 (and as it turns out, all my opening knowledge is basically useless for the rest of the tournament). I think he has an edge around move 20, at move 30 he offers a draw even though I'm a little low on time (17 minutes for 11 moves), I sense some weakness, refuse, and I outplay him, go two pawns ahead, then on move 38 he tries a desperation trap, I play a cute move to avoid it and he resigns.
Game 3 (Round 5)--Middle-aged guy from Oakland (1681) shows up 10 minutes late looking a little bleary, I have White, go 1. d4 and his first 8 moves are...(wait for it)...h6, a6, e6, d6, Qd7, f6, Qf7, c6; I know this is a "Hippo" or some damned thing, I do my best not to go nuts, and he somehow wiggles around to an acceptable if slightly inferior position with both sides castled 0-0-0, I have some pressure, on move 29 he thinks for 26 minutes and plays a move that I thought was bad--it was, six moves later he's looking at mate in 2--resigns.
Game 4 (Round 6)--Slightly younger guy from Texas (1753), I'm Black for the third time in four games, he avoids my King's Indian Defense and plays the "Barry Attack," I respond sensibly and don't get intimidated by his kingside pawn storm, arrange to block things permanently there. He offers a draw on move 25, any advantage I have is microscopic, so to finish a very good tournament for me--draw agreed.
Enough for now, more to come.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Pearson-David Parreira 10.04.07 Game Score
(Previous report on this game here)
White: Robert Pearson (1607)
Black: David Parreira (1370)
Reno CC Swiss 10.04.07
30/90, G/60
Symmetrical QGD
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c5 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. e3 cxd4 5. Nc3 Qd8 6. exd4 Nf6 7. Nf3 g6 8. Bc4 Bg7 9. 0-0 0-0 10. Bg5 Nbd7 11. Re1 Nb6 12. Bb3 Qc7 13. Rc1 Qd8 14. Qd2 a6 15. Na4 Nxa4 16. Bxa4 b5 17. Bb3 Bb7 18. Rc3 Qd6 19. Bf4 Qd8 20. Rc7 Bxf3 21. gxf3 Nd5 22. Bxd5 Qxd5 23. R1xe7 Qxa2 24. Be5 Qd5 25. Bxg7 Kxg7 26. Qf4 a5 27. Rcd7 Qb3 28. d5 Kh8 29. Qf6+ Kg8 30. Rxf7 Qd1+ 31. Kg2 Qxf3+ 32. Kxf3 Rxf7 33. Qxf7+ Kh8 34. Qg7 1-0
Just paste in the pgn viewer to enjoy--for whatever reason I once again can't get it to work in the Chess Publisher; I've really got to look into some improved viewer I can embed in the post for ease of use...
Brief impressions: Chesslab has exactly two games with the position after White's fifth move--one from 1851. In both cases Black didn't retreat all the way back; in fact this is the first game I can remember, ever, where the opponent went back Qd8 three times.
15. Na4? is the only move I consider to be really weak on my part, and after an 11-minute think, too. 15. h3 waiting, ought to be better. My move just develops his game.
I was fortunate that he played 27. ... Qb3? instead of Qc4. During the game I thought it would take a long time to tack around and try to break up his kingside, but once the queen was cut off it was all over.
Now as soon as I can I'll have a real look at the game and find more of my mistakes...
Anyway, rating advanced four big points as a result of this tournament(!) to 1611. At least it was in the right direction. Now, the Western States Open this weekend and 5 games against B-players to test my progress!
White: Robert Pearson (1607)
Black: David Parreira (1370)
Reno CC Swiss 10.04.07
30/90, G/60
Symmetrical QGD
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c5 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. e3 cxd4 5. Nc3 Qd8 6. exd4 Nf6 7. Nf3 g6 8. Bc4 Bg7 9. 0-0 0-0 10. Bg5 Nbd7 11. Re1 Nb6 12. Bb3 Qc7 13. Rc1 Qd8 14. Qd2 a6 15. Na4 Nxa4 16. Bxa4 b5 17. Bb3 Bb7 18. Rc3 Qd6 19. Bf4 Qd8 20. Rc7 Bxf3 21. gxf3 Nd5 22. Bxd5 Qxd5 23. R1xe7 Qxa2 24. Be5 Qd5 25. Bxg7 Kxg7 26. Qf4 a5 27. Rcd7 Qb3 28. d5 Kh8 29. Qf6+ Kg8 30. Rxf7 Qd1+ 31. Kg2 Qxf3+ 32. Kxf3 Rxf7 33. Qxf7+ Kh8 34. Qg7 1-0
Just paste in the pgn viewer to enjoy--for whatever reason I once again can't get it to work in the Chess Publisher; I've really got to look into some improved viewer I can embed in the post for ease of use...
Brief impressions: Chesslab has exactly two games with the position after White's fifth move--one from 1851. In both cases Black didn't retreat all the way back; in fact this is the first game I can remember, ever, where the opponent went back Qd8 three times.
15. Na4? is the only move I consider to be really weak on my part, and after an 11-minute think, too. 15. h3 waiting, ought to be better. My move just develops his game.
I was fortunate that he played 27. ... Qb3? instead of Qc4. During the game I thought it would take a long time to tack around and try to break up his kingside, but once the queen was cut off it was all over.
Now as soon as I can I'll have a real look at the game and find more of my mistakes...
Anyway, rating advanced four big points as a result of this tournament(!) to 1611. At least it was in the right direction. Now, the Western States Open this weekend and 5 games against B-players to test my progress!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Ratings Snobs, "Different Games" and Piles of Horse Dung
WARNING: Prepare for extreme eclecticism
First, I discovered a real treat in Elizabeth Vicary's USCL news and gossip blog, wherein her sense of humor and the absurd are allowed to shine through in a way that's not appropriate in her very competent reporting for the USCF (example). In a word, I find this blog hilarious. In a recent post though, she makes a semi-serious point:
The most recent issue of New In Chess Magazine has a letter from a reader, David Wright of Sacramento, who takes Jonathan Rowson to task for his condescending review of Josh Waitzkin’s book The Art of Learning. While Rowson makes it clear that he essentially likes the book, his main point is that Josh can’t really be so good at learning or he would have made GM. David Wright’s point is that this attitude is more ungenerous than it is correct, and I think I agree. But it's also par for the course in the chess world: the belief that the higher your rating is, the more you have a right to an opinion. If you’re not at least a master, or in Josh’s case a grandmaster, then your experience is inauthentic and doesn’t really count. And you certainly shouldn’t have the arrogance to write a best-selling book.
Now I happen to love J. Rowson's writing--in fact I'm devouring Chess for Zebras right now-- but Elizabeth hits the nail on the head here; related to this idea that if you're not highly rated you can't write a worthwhile chess book is a kind of "desperate elitism" that's endemic around the chess scene, where 1700-rated people who are mediocrities in the game of life turn up their noses at 1300- rated guys who arrive at the club in BMWs, and are in turn looked down upon by 2200-rated people who can't drive a car, hold a job or take a shower.
I'm exaggerating for effect here, but I challenge anybody who has attended clubs and tournaments for any length of time to tell me this isn't true: For a certain portion of us chess geeks rating is a substitute for failures in other areas of life and lack of self-esteem. And a portion of GMs and IMs have the same syndrome, only worse: "I'm a Chess God, and I don't have time to bother with you Little People." This is not true of all strong players, and I could name several that I've talked to at tournaments who turned out to be very nice people. But when you have a high rating it's tempting to correlate ratings with intelligence and success. As much as I love and enjoy the game I can also see a bigger picture, and I'm not buying into that at all.
On a somewhat related note, over at Mig Greengard's Daily Dirt I spotted some more high-level drivel in this post:
I've often said that elite chess is a very different game from amateur chess
Yeah, I've often read this sort of horseshit before, too. Some old book by Reinfeld made a statement like this, and I laughed then--that's what they would like us to think, so we'll keep stroking their egos and paying them for books and lessons. Now Mig was talking about openings and all the super-duper high-level mysterious inscrutable prep these guys go through in order to keep up--but let's try the sentence with some substitutions:
I've often said that NFL football is a very different game from sandlot football
Well, the players are bigger, faster and more skilled and they spend all freakin' day working out, practicing, watching film and planning their plays. It's the same damned game, but played at a higher level. So is the chess in Mexico City versus what will be going on at the Reno Chess Club this evening.
Back to Elizabeth Vicary for a moment; in the comments to her most recent post "anonymous" (who seems, very, very busy in that thread) says, "What kind of attitude would you expect from someone who has spent 15 years as an A/Expert player. Break 2200 someday, and then, maybe, the grandiose opinions you have for yourself may not be so insulting to people who have earned their ratings, titles and ability." She replied:
Oh, I'm sorry, anonymous. I didn't mean to insult your enormous rating. It's a shame we can't all appreciate it because you are too CHICKENSH*T to post under your own name. You know why I get to express my opinions? Because it's MY BLOG.
Bravo! And this is MY BLOG here, and I have a USCF rating of 1607 and and IQ of 140. I'd estimate my rating at life its own self at 2300, and rising. And I, too, allow anonymous comments, so let the games begin.
First, I discovered a real treat in Elizabeth Vicary's USCL news and gossip blog, wherein her sense of humor and the absurd are allowed to shine through in a way that's not appropriate in her very competent reporting for the USCF (example). In a word, I find this blog hilarious. In a recent post though, she makes a semi-serious point:
The most recent issue of New In Chess Magazine has a letter from a reader, David Wright of Sacramento, who takes Jonathan Rowson to task for his condescending review of Josh Waitzkin’s book The Art of Learning. While Rowson makes it clear that he essentially likes the book, his main point is that Josh can’t really be so good at learning or he would have made GM. David Wright’s point is that this attitude is more ungenerous than it is correct, and I think I agree. But it's also par for the course in the chess world: the belief that the higher your rating is, the more you have a right to an opinion. If you’re not at least a master, or in Josh’s case a grandmaster, then your experience is inauthentic and doesn’t really count. And you certainly shouldn’t have the arrogance to write a best-selling book.
Now I happen to love J. Rowson's writing--in fact I'm devouring Chess for Zebras right now-- but Elizabeth hits the nail on the head here; related to this idea that if you're not highly rated you can't write a worthwhile chess book is a kind of "desperate elitism" that's endemic around the chess scene, where 1700-rated people who are mediocrities in the game of life turn up their noses at 1300- rated guys who arrive at the club in BMWs, and are in turn looked down upon by 2200-rated people who can't drive a car, hold a job or take a shower.
I'm exaggerating for effect here, but I challenge anybody who has attended clubs and tournaments for any length of time to tell me this isn't true: For a certain portion of us chess geeks rating is a substitute for failures in other areas of life and lack of self-esteem. And a portion of GMs and IMs have the same syndrome, only worse: "I'm a Chess God, and I don't have time to bother with you Little People." This is not true of all strong players, and I could name several that I've talked to at tournaments who turned out to be very nice people. But when you have a high rating it's tempting to correlate ratings with intelligence and success. As much as I love and enjoy the game I can also see a bigger picture, and I'm not buying into that at all.
On a somewhat related note, over at Mig Greengard's Daily Dirt I spotted some more high-level drivel in this post:
I've often said that elite chess is a very different game from amateur chess
Yeah, I've often read this sort of horseshit before, too. Some old book by Reinfeld made a statement like this, and I laughed then--that's what they would like us to think, so we'll keep stroking their egos and paying them for books and lessons. Now Mig was talking about openings and all the super-duper high-level mysterious inscrutable prep these guys go through in order to keep up--but let's try the sentence with some substitutions:
I've often said that NFL football is a very different game from sandlot football
Well, the players are bigger, faster and more skilled and they spend all freakin' day working out, practicing, watching film and planning their plays. It's the same damned game, but played at a higher level. So is the chess in Mexico City versus what will be going on at the Reno Chess Club this evening.
Back to Elizabeth Vicary for a moment; in the comments to her most recent post "anonymous" (who seems, very, very busy in that thread) says, "What kind of attitude would you expect from someone who has spent 15 years as an A/Expert player. Break 2200 someday, and then, maybe, the grandiose opinions you have for yourself may not be so insulting to people who have earned their ratings, titles and ability." She replied:
Oh, I'm sorry, anonymous. I didn't mean to insult your enormous rating. It's a shame we can't all appreciate it because you are too CHICKENSH*T to post under your own name. You know why I get to express my opinions? Because it's MY BLOG.
Bravo! And this is MY BLOG here, and I have a USCF rating of 1607 and and IQ of 140. I'd estimate my rating at life its own self at 2300, and rising. And I, too, allow anonymous comments, so let the games begin.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Pearson-Kesti, Game 6: A Win for Your Host
Although Steve Kesti had clinched the Reno CC Class B Ch. with his victory last week he was kind enough to play Game 6 (the usual practice at our club) last night, and the result was a win for me, in rather strange fashion.
I opened with 1. e4 this time; I'm back to playing it occasionally and since this game was just for fun, glory and rating points I pulled it out. And with what a result! He chose the Pirc Defense and I unveiled the Mad Dog variation, and by move 10 he was in desperate trouble, down material...and then of course I had to castle O-O-O, in the spirit of things, and it got more interesting as he threw everything he had at my King. I think I had it under control until move 30, when on the last move before the first time control I took an attacking Bishop off, which I figured would quell the attack. Unfortunately, this wasn't really calculated, it was, as I say, figured (heh) and I soon realized he would win back the Exchange and a pawn he was down.
But okay, not getting down on myself, not panicking, I saw that I could go into a better Rook ending where he had weak pawns, and indeed win one of his pawns within a few moves. Fine--I feel good that I was still trying to find the best move instead of worrying about the way things might have been. And lo and behold, he immediately offered to trade Rooks into a lost Pawn ending, which I played accurately enough.
I'm sure it was difficult for my opponent to play his best when the match wasn't on the line, but I had the motivation of estimating before the game that a win would gain me around 9 rating points, to 1609, inching a little closer to my goal of 1700 by the end of the year. Plus I'm having a lot of fun playing again.
As is customary here, I'm putting down my day-after impressions while still fresh, and will do my best to post the game and annotations late tonight, or if not then, in the next couple of days.
I opened with 1. e4 this time; I'm back to playing it occasionally and since this game was just for fun, glory and rating points I pulled it out. And with what a result! He chose the Pirc Defense and I unveiled the Mad Dog variation, and by move 10 he was in desperate trouble, down material...and then of course I had to castle O-O-O, in the spirit of things, and it got more interesting as he threw everything he had at my King. I think I had it under control until move 30, when on the last move before the first time control I took an attacking Bishop off, which I figured would quell the attack. Unfortunately, this wasn't really calculated, it was, as I say, figured (heh) and I soon realized he would win back the Exchange and a pawn he was down.
But okay, not getting down on myself, not panicking, I saw that I could go into a better Rook ending where he had weak pawns, and indeed win one of his pawns within a few moves. Fine--I feel good that I was still trying to find the best move instead of worrying about the way things might have been. And lo and behold, he immediately offered to trade Rooks into a lost Pawn ending, which I played accurately enough.
I'm sure it was difficult for my opponent to play his best when the match wasn't on the line, but I had the motivation of estimating before the game that a win would gain me around 9 rating points, to 1609, inching a little closer to my goal of 1700 by the end of the year. Plus I'm having a lot of fun playing again.
As is customary here, I'm putting down my day-after impressions while still fresh, and will do my best to post the game and annotations late tonight, or if not then, in the next couple of days.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
New Year in My Chess Life
While I haven't written anything here for three weeks, I haven't been entirely idle on the chess front, my main activity being the study of my own games as part of the program in Rolf Wetzell's Chess Master...at any age. It's been a revelation, not just in learning from my mistakes, but in a way that Wetzell talked about but I hadn't really experienced before--how painful it is to really study and critique your own efforts.
I'm almost ashamed to admit how little I have done in this area in the 26 years of my tournament chess career, usually preferring to move on to the next game rather than analyze the one recently completed. Often the immediate postmortem was the only study I gave to a tournament game, and the circumstances of tournament play at the Reno Chess Club have made even that difficult over the last year. So the deeper study of six or seven games from the last six months for 1-2 hours each has been difficult--but also a revelation.
I'm now convinced, more than ever, that my understanding of chess is at least that of an 1800-1900 player (and indeed, I was once rated 1825), and perhaps equal to that of some Experts, but that I'll have to bring that understanding to bear in practical games more frequently and consistently in order to move up the ladder.
I'll be returning to tournament play in the city class championships in about four weeks, and we'll see how much my efforts ahve paid off then, in the fire of competition.
At the beginning of 2006 I set a goal of a 1700+ rating by the end of that year. I am still at my floor of 1600 as of today. I again say to the chess world (heh, I'm sure it's sitting up and taking notice!) that by the end of 2007 I will be over 1700. Now let's see if I can make good on that.
I'm almost ashamed to admit how little I have done in this area in the 26 years of my tournament chess career, usually preferring to move on to the next game rather than analyze the one recently completed. Often the immediate postmortem was the only study I gave to a tournament game, and the circumstances of tournament play at the Reno Chess Club have made even that difficult over the last year. So the deeper study of six or seven games from the last six months for 1-2 hours each has been difficult--but also a revelation.
I'm now convinced, more than ever, that my understanding of chess is at least that of an 1800-1900 player (and indeed, I was once rated 1825), and perhaps equal to that of some Experts, but that I'll have to bring that understanding to bear in practical games more frequently and consistently in order to move up the ladder.
I'll be returning to tournament play in the city class championships in about four weeks, and we'll see how much my efforts ahve paid off then, in the fire of competition.
At the beginning of 2006 I set a goal of a 1700+ rating by the end of that year. I am still at my floor of 1600 as of today. I again say to the chess world (heh, I'm sure it's sitting up and taking notice!) that by the end of 2007 I will be over 1700. Now let's see if I can make good on that.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
My Tournaments and Ratings For the Record
Tournaments and rating since 1992. I reached a peak of around 1825 in 1988 or 89. Here's Bryan Smith, the guy I posted about playing back in 1996. Now that's progress!
I'll be playing rated tournament chess again this Thursday, and every Thursday after that (barring the ususal 'life events'). When I can get that rating to climb, I'll crow about it here.
I'll be playing rated tournament chess again this Thursday, and every Thursday after that (barring the ususal 'life events'). When I can get that rating to climb, I'll crow about it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)