(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!
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Friday, October 05, 2007
Pearson-David Parreira 10.04.07 1-0
Just a few minutes to note that I was back to serious tournament play last evening against David Parreira (1370) and mated him on move 34 after he played the symmetrical QGD (1. d5 d5 2. c4 c5) against me. I think I've only seen it once before in serious play; I reacted sensibly, got an edge, played one second-rate move that gave away most of my advantage, and in a heavy-piece position with queen and two rooks each he made one mistake and I cut off his queen from defending his king, leading to mate.
A reasonable effort--I'll be gone for a couple of days but I'll post the moves for criticism as soon as I can.
Have a great weekend!
A reasonable effort--I'll be gone for a couple of days but I'll post the moves for criticism as soon as I can.
Have a great weekend!
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Mexico City 2007 v. AVRO 1938
Some interesting comparisons between the recent World Championship tournament and the "AVRO" tournament in the Netherlands (various cities) back in 1938 which was originally supposed to be a "Candidates" tournament, but by the time it took place apparently wasn't, at least officially.
Anyway, both tournaments featured eight of the world's very best in a double-round robin format (56 games total), so I thought it would be interesting to make a few comparisons:
Mexico 2007
AVRO 1938
Decisive Games:
20
24
Percent Draws:
64.3
57.1
Winning Score:
9.0
8.5 (tie)
Lowest Score:
5.5
4.5
Spread, 1st to 8th:
3.5
4.0
Spread, 1st to 7th
3.0
2.5
Some interesting parallels; I think some of the chess proletariat were complaining about the draws back then, too. In both cases, there are no easy games, that's for sure.
Anyway, both tournaments featured eight of the world's very best in a double-round robin format (56 games total), so I thought it would be interesting to make a few comparisons:
Mexico 2007
AVRO 1938
Decisive Games:
20
24
Percent Draws:
64.3
57.1
Winning Score:
9.0
8.5 (tie)
Lowest Score:
5.5
4.5
Spread, 1st to 8th:
3.5
4.0
Spread, 1st to 7th
3.0
2.5
Some interesting parallels; I think some of the chess proletariat were complaining about the draws back then, too. In both cases, there are no easy games, that's for sure.
Kasparov to Take On Putin
Not strictly chess, but hey, it's my blog...
Max Boot comments on the strategic background:
It is easy to be cynical about the motives of most politicians. But it is hard, if not impossible, to think of any self-interest that Kasparov has in doing what he is doing. He is truly a hero. I only hope he does not become a martyr.
Me, too, though I don't think that Putin is stupid enough to make him one.
Max Boot comments on the strategic background:
It is easy to be cynical about the motives of most politicians. But it is hard, if not impossible, to think of any self-interest that Kasparov has in doing what he is doing. He is truly a hero. I only hope he does not become a martyr.
Me, too, though I don't think that Putin is stupid enough to make him one.
Monday, October 01, 2007
A Little Follow-on
My previous post on Ratings Snobs, "Different Games" and Piles of Horse Dung succeeded in starting some stimulating discussion, and for that I am grateful. Today, a brief expansion of a couple of points:
1) Publishing my IQ and my estimated rating at "life" (2300) were both given in a spirit of humor and humility--hmmm, if I'm so smart why am I a mid-level bureaucrat with 1607 USCF rating :)--but Loomis summed up what I was trying to get at very nicely:
The problem is that chess players often try to carry what they've earned on the chess board to the rest of life. When chess players are together, for some reason their ratings impact every social interaction, chess related or not. That to me is bizarre.
Well and succinctly said!
I guess I could also sum it up by saying having a 2200 rating doesn't make you a Master of Life, nor does it make your opinion on who ought to be the next President of the U.S. or any other political or social issue worth more than that of a person rated 1200.
2) I got on Mig Greengard for writing:
I've often said that elite chess is a very different game from amateur chess
but meant the critique mainly for the terminology ("a very different game"). To expand, the difference at the very top (say 2700+ or -; there's no bright line) is that the opponent isn't going to make very many mistakes (though few games will be "perfect"), and so obtaining some advantage as White, or equality as Black, is a lot more important than at lower levels. Even at the 2500-2600 level a GM is going to get more opportunities in most games, with either color, to redress the balance after an inaccuracy or two. So in a tournament like Mexico City openings are more important than for the rest of us, agreed. But the terminology employed seems designed to separate these guys as some kind of demigods or something--us chess proletarians just don't understand what's going on, y'know. But if that's really true, why should the rest of us waste our time looking at the games, buying these guys' books or supporting Superduper-GM chess in any way, when we could be spending it on our tactics exercises and studying our own games? I'm just sayin', that's where the "different game" logic leads.
Anyway, heartiest congratulation to Anand, World Champion. Better get those openings ready for Kramnik...
1) Publishing my IQ and my estimated rating at "life" (2300) were both given in a spirit of humor and humility--hmmm, if I'm so smart why am I a mid-level bureaucrat with 1607 USCF rating :)--but Loomis summed up what I was trying to get at very nicely:
The problem is that chess players often try to carry what they've earned on the chess board to the rest of life. When chess players are together, for some reason their ratings impact every social interaction, chess related or not. That to me is bizarre.
Well and succinctly said!
I guess I could also sum it up by saying having a 2200 rating doesn't make you a Master of Life, nor does it make your opinion on who ought to be the next President of the U.S. or any other political or social issue worth more than that of a person rated 1200.
2) I got on Mig Greengard for writing:
I've often said that elite chess is a very different game from amateur chess
but meant the critique mainly for the terminology ("a very different game"). To expand, the difference at the very top (say 2700+ or -; there's no bright line) is that the opponent isn't going to make very many mistakes (though few games will be "perfect"), and so obtaining some advantage as White, or equality as Black, is a lot more important than at lower levels. Even at the 2500-2600 level a GM is going to get more opportunities in most games, with either color, to redress the balance after an inaccuracy or two. So in a tournament like Mexico City openings are more important than for the rest of us, agreed. But the terminology employed seems designed to separate these guys as some kind of demigods or something--us chess proletarians just don't understand what's going on, y'know. But if that's really true, why should the rest of us waste our time looking at the games, buying these guys' books or supporting Superduper-GM chess in any way, when we could be spending it on our tactics exercises and studying our own games? I'm just sayin', that's where the "different game" logic leads.
Anyway, heartiest congratulation to Anand, World Champion. Better get those openings ready for Kramnik...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)