See here for more.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Pearson-Smith, G. 07.26.07 1-0
My postgame thoughts were here. If you'd like to view the game, paste just the moves into the pgn viewer. For some reason the header is messing it up, though it looks fine to me...anyway, this one is short enough that you might try following it "blindfolded" and see how you do.
[Event "Reno CC Blockbuster Swiss"]
[Site "Reno, NV"]
[Date "2007.07.26"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Pearson, Robert"]
[Black "Smith, George"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1600"]
[BlackElo "1430"]
[ECO "D15"]
[Annotator "Pearson, R."]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c6 { An unusual move order, but White has no special advantage by steering away from the Slav Defense. So... } 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bf5?! { Known to lead to trouble for Black, though Capabalnca once beat Janowski with it (New York 1916) and then passed over the move in his notes. I thought I knew the refutation... } 5. cxd5 cxd5 { Nxd5 is thought to be better but after 6. Nd2 and a quick e4 White has a big edge. } 6. Qb3 b6? { Bc8 is the only decent move--I remember facing it years ago in an Alaska tournament. White is obviously doing very well after that, however. Now we reach a curious juncture; I thought I remembered a refutation that begins 7. e4(!) but I see that Yermolinsky in his "Road to Chess Improvement" gives 7. Bf4 and it's "very hard to continue" for Black. Both lines are probably very good for White, but remember, I "thought" I knew a killer sequence. } 7. e4 dxe4 8. Bb5+ { No, no! Ne5! threatens mate and forces e6, then the bishop check is much stronger; 9. ...Nfd7 10. g4 Bg6 11. h4 h5 12. Nxg6 and 13. Qxe6+. } Bd7 { Now I was sure I'd transposed and missed out, but I'm pleased that instead of worrying about any of that I just played the position. I figured I still had the advantage, so screw the past, let's play good moves! } 9. Ne5 e6 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 { Going down my main line. Perhaps Bd6 offered more chances but White's still on top after 12. Bf4. } 12. Qxd5 Bb4+ 13. Ke2 Bxb5+ 14. Qxb5+ Nd7 15. Rd1 { More accurate than Nxd7 followed by Qxb4. } O-O 16. Qxb4 Nxe5? { He had to get the queen out and try to cause confusion. } 17. Rxd8 Raxd8 { He resigned without waiting for my reply } 1-0
[Event "Reno CC Blockbuster Swiss"]
[Site "Reno, NV"]
[Date "2007.07.26"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Pearson, Robert"]
[Black "Smith, George"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1600"]
[BlackElo "1430"]
[ECO "D15"]
[Annotator "Pearson, R."]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c6 { An unusual move order, but White has no special advantage by steering away from the Slav Defense. So... } 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bf5?! { Known to lead to trouble for Black, though Capabalnca once beat Janowski with it (New York 1916) and then passed over the move in his notes. I thought I knew the refutation... } 5. cxd5 cxd5 { Nxd5 is thought to be better but after 6. Nd2 and a quick e4 White has a big edge. } 6. Qb3 b6? { Bc8 is the only decent move--I remember facing it years ago in an Alaska tournament. White is obviously doing very well after that, however. Now we reach a curious juncture; I thought I remembered a refutation that begins 7. e4(!) but I see that Yermolinsky in his "Road to Chess Improvement" gives 7. Bf4 and it's "very hard to continue" for Black. Both lines are probably very good for White, but remember, I "thought" I knew a killer sequence. } 7. e4 dxe4 8. Bb5+ { No, no! Ne5! threatens mate and forces e6, then the bishop check is much stronger; 9. ...Nfd7 10. g4 Bg6 11. h4 h5 12. Nxg6 and 13. Qxe6+. } Bd7 { Now I was sure I'd transposed and missed out, but I'm pleased that instead of worrying about any of that I just played the position. I figured I still had the advantage, so screw the past, let's play good moves! } 9. Ne5 e6 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 { Going down my main line. Perhaps Bd6 offered more chances but White's still on top after 12. Bf4. } 12. Qxd5 Bb4+ 13. Ke2 Bxb5+ 14. Qxb5+ Nd7 15. Rd1 { More accurate than Nxd7 followed by Qxb4. } O-O 16. Qxb4 Nxe5? { He had to get the queen out and try to cause confusion. } 17. Rxd8 Raxd8 { He resigned without waiting for my reply } 1-0
Friday, July 27, 2007
Chess and the "80/20 Principle"
Blue Devil Knight's excellent post Lessons from blitz (do read the whole thing) really struck a chord because I happen to be reading a book right now called The 80/20 Principle (I've only read the Introduction thus far, but I already had some knowledge of where the author is going).
The gist of the 80/20 Principle is that 20 percent of your efforts produce 80 percent of your results, 20 percent of your customers produce 80 percent of your profits, etc. An Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, originally formulated the principle when he observed that across many countries it always seemed that 20 percent of the people had 80 percent of the wealth.
What has this to do with chess (you may be asking by now)?
EVERYTHING.
From BDK's post:
Ninety percent of the games were decided by tactical blunders. The following plots the proportion of tactical errors, sorted by type, culled from looking over about 60 of the games:
(BDK is a scientist and we're lucky enough to get handy visual pointers like this).
More:
Going through the errors also revealed a very interesting property of tactical opportunities. There were hardly any complex combinations available in any of the games. Perhaps in 3% of the games, I missed four-or-more move combinations. Most realistic combinations are two or three move, typically one move. This is an extremely useful fact, and should be impressed into the minds of all beginners. When I first started playing chess, I looked at the board as a structure with infinite tactical possibilities that were well out of my reach, I would sit and search for complicated N-move combinations, wrongly believing that they must be there, but that I was just too stupid to see them. My post-mortem showed me how naive my thinking was, and this is liberating.
The law of short combinations also makes sense from an analytical point of view (and could probably be proven mathematically): the longer the imagined combination, the more likely it is that the opponent will have defensive resources, will have in-between moves that are hard to see, the more likely it is that you are simply missing an obvious weakness in your attack or somehow miscalculating the combination.
There are a lot more interesting and useful conclusions he makes from the study of these blitz games, and I would say they apply to slow chess as well, particularly games that are not master v. master (I think that covers almost all the readers of this blog). Again, read his whole post.
Now let us relate all this to the 80/20 Principle, which has been found so applicable in so many different fields. Synthesizing the experiences and writings of Michael de la Maza, Dan Heisman, GM Ziatdinov and others (see Temposchlucker, dk/transformation), it looks to me like there is conclusive evidence that 80 percent of one's study time (until one has reached a rating of perhaps 2000) ought to be used on studying, absorbing and putting basic tactics into Long Term Memory, where these patterns are "at your fingertips" so to speak. The majority using your own games as examples, going over the decisive position numerous times until you see the position and BAM! the right move jumps out at you. The rest of the 80 percent, tactics books, CTS, CT-Art, etc. About 20 percent of study time to be used on openings, endings and master games.
Hey, I realize that some of you already were thinking and doing this, or close to it, but some of us take awhile to learn what's good for us. This will be my study breakdown from here forward.
The gist of the 80/20 Principle is that 20 percent of your efforts produce 80 percent of your results, 20 percent of your customers produce 80 percent of your profits, etc. An Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, originally formulated the principle when he observed that across many countries it always seemed that 20 percent of the people had 80 percent of the wealth.
What has this to do with chess (you may be asking by now)?
EVERYTHING.
From BDK's post:
Ninety percent of the games were decided by tactical blunders. The following plots the proportion of tactical errors, sorted by type, culled from looking over about 60 of the games:
(BDK is a scientist and we're lucky enough to get handy visual pointers like this).
More:
Going through the errors also revealed a very interesting property of tactical opportunities. There were hardly any complex combinations available in any of the games. Perhaps in 3% of the games, I missed four-or-more move combinations. Most realistic combinations are two or three move, typically one move. This is an extremely useful fact, and should be impressed into the minds of all beginners. When I first started playing chess, I looked at the board as a structure with infinite tactical possibilities that were well out of my reach, I would sit and search for complicated N-move combinations, wrongly believing that they must be there, but that I was just too stupid to see them. My post-mortem showed me how naive my thinking was, and this is liberating.
The law of short combinations also makes sense from an analytical point of view (and could probably be proven mathematically): the longer the imagined combination, the more likely it is that the opponent will have defensive resources, will have in-between moves that are hard to see, the more likely it is that you are simply missing an obvious weakness in your attack or somehow miscalculating the combination.
There are a lot more interesting and useful conclusions he makes from the study of these blitz games, and I would say they apply to slow chess as well, particularly games that are not master v. master (I think that covers almost all the readers of this blog). Again, read his whole post.
Now let us relate all this to the 80/20 Principle, which has been found so applicable in so many different fields. Synthesizing the experiences and writings of Michael de la Maza, Dan Heisman, GM Ziatdinov and others (see Temposchlucker, dk/transformation), it looks to me like there is conclusive evidence that 80 percent of one's study time (until one has reached a rating of perhaps 2000) ought to be used on studying, absorbing and putting basic tactics into Long Term Memory, where these patterns are "at your fingertips" so to speak. The majority using your own games as examples, going over the decisive position numerous times until you see the position and BAM! the right move jumps out at you. The rest of the 80 percent, tactics books, CTS, CT-Art, etc. About 20 percent of study time to be used on openings, endings and master games.
Hey, I realize that some of you already were thinking and doing this, or close to it, but some of us take awhile to learn what's good for us. This will be my study breakdown from here forward.
Pearson-G. Smith 07.26.07 1-0
Quick report for now--I won last night's Reno CC Swiss game (30/90, G/60) against George Smith (1430) when he played a variation of the Slav Defense that I knew to be questionable...and I didn't play the refutation in the right order! Still, I got a lot of pressure and a position that led to an advantage, so I'm not gonna cry too much. It was all over at move 17 when, down a queen for a rook, he resigned.
I'll have the game text and comments and more about the this variation as soon as possible.
I'll have the game text and comments and more about the this variation as soon as possible.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Harrington-Pearson 07.19.07 1/2-1/2
Here's the game from last Thursday that I wrote about below. While I missed some chances, I also kept my head and drew, keeping my concentration and focus a lot better and longer than in other recent games. That's encouraging.
[Event "Reno CC Blockbuster Swiss"]
[Site "Reno, NV"]
[Date "2007.07.19"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Harrington, Chris"]
[Black "Pearson, Robert"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "1429"]
[BlackElo "1600"]
[ECO "B01"]
[Annotator "R. Pearson"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxd5 4. d4 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. O-O g6 7. Bg5 Bg7 8. Qd2 h6 9. Bh4 a6 10. Ba4 O-O 11. Bb3 Bf5 12. c3 Qd7 13. Bxd5 Qxd5 14. Bg3 Rac8 15. Bf4 Kh7 16. Re1 Rfe8 17. Ne5 Rcd8 18. Re3 { While there are undoubtedly some improvements for both sides earlier, we pick up the game in this tense position. Black's next few moves are based on the belief that Bxh6 is no good for White--but Bxe5! and Nxe4! were BOTH very strong here, winning material due to various pins and back-rank themes...instead } Bxb1?! 19. Nxc6! { He sees the threat, but now Black thought the e5 push would be very strong. } Qxc6 20. Rxb1 e5 21. Bxh6 { NOW I see that Re3 had a point. I spent 20 minutes calculating and decided that } Bxh6 { this move limited the damage. But after } 22. Rh3 { I played my planned continuation quickly, instead of g5! cutting off the queen's attack and adding my queen as defender. Then with Qg6 as a followup Black would have a winning advantage. } Kg7? 23. Qxh6+ Kf6 24. dxe5+ Rxe5 25. Rf3+ Ke6 26. Re3 Rxe3 27. Qxe3+ Kf6 28. Qf4+ Kg7 29. h4 Qd6!? { I think it was smart to offer the trade of queens here; the rook ending will have Black's rook getting active a move or two earlier than White's and it will be very difficult to win. He should have kept the queens on and probed for awhile. } 30. Qxd6?! Rxd6 31. Re1 Kf8 { He can't stop me going to the 7th rank with my rook so I cut out his invasion first. } 32. Kf1?! { I think Ka2 was the only good way to play for a win. } Rd2 33. Re2 Rd1+ 34. Re1 Rd2 35. Rb1 Ke7 36. Re1+ Kf6 { Tempting him to go Re8--but Black wins a pawn and White doesn't, and I'd be the one playing for the win. So... } 37. Re2 Rd1+ 38. Re1 Rd2 39. Re2 Rd1+ 40. Re1 Rd2 1/2-1/2
Try pasting the text above into this pgn viewer--I can't get Chess Publisher to work. Again.
ADDENDUM 07/24/07: So I miss short combinations or defenses twice within a few moves and then write that the game is "encouraging." I'm a regular Pollyanna! Looking back, I think some sterner self-criticism is in order for this one. I was lucky to scrape a draw.
[Event "Reno CC Blockbuster Swiss"]
[Site "Reno, NV"]
[Date "2007.07.19"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Harrington, Chris"]
[Black "Pearson, Robert"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "1429"]
[BlackElo "1600"]
[ECO "B01"]
[Annotator "R. Pearson"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxd5 4. d4 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. O-O g6 7. Bg5 Bg7 8. Qd2 h6 9. Bh4 a6 10. Ba4 O-O 11. Bb3 Bf5 12. c3 Qd7 13. Bxd5 Qxd5 14. Bg3 Rac8 15. Bf4 Kh7 16. Re1 Rfe8 17. Ne5 Rcd8 18. Re3 { While there are undoubtedly some improvements for both sides earlier, we pick up the game in this tense position. Black's next few moves are based on the belief that Bxh6 is no good for White--but Bxe5! and Nxe4! were BOTH very strong here, winning material due to various pins and back-rank themes...instead } Bxb1?! 19. Nxc6! { He sees the threat, but now Black thought the e5 push would be very strong. } Qxc6 20. Rxb1 e5 21. Bxh6 { NOW I see that Re3 had a point. I spent 20 minutes calculating and decided that } Bxh6 { this move limited the damage. But after } 22. Rh3 { I played my planned continuation quickly, instead of g5! cutting off the queen's attack and adding my queen as defender. Then with Qg6 as a followup Black would have a winning advantage. } Kg7? 23. Qxh6+ Kf6 24. dxe5+ Rxe5 25. Rf3+ Ke6 26. Re3 Rxe3 27. Qxe3+ Kf6 28. Qf4+ Kg7 29. h4 Qd6!? { I think it was smart to offer the trade of queens here; the rook ending will have Black's rook getting active a move or two earlier than White's and it will be very difficult to win. He should have kept the queens on and probed for awhile. } 30. Qxd6?! Rxd6 31. Re1 Kf8 { He can't stop me going to the 7th rank with my rook so I cut out his invasion first. } 32. Kf1?! { I think Ka2 was the only good way to play for a win. } Rd2 33. Re2 Rd1+ 34. Re1 Rd2 35. Rb1 Ke7 36. Re1+ Kf6 { Tempting him to go Re8--but Black wins a pawn and White doesn't, and I'd be the one playing for the win. So... } 37. Re2 Rd1+ 38. Re1 Rd2 39. Re2 Rd1+ 40. Re1 Rd2 1/2-1/2
Try pasting the text above into this pgn viewer--I can't get Chess Publisher to work. Again.
ADDENDUM 07/24/07: So I miss short combinations or defenses twice within a few moves and then write that the game is "encouraging." I'm a regular Pollyanna! Looking back, I think some sterner self-criticism is in order for this one. I was lucky to scrape a draw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)