In the last post I promised to post some game(s) from the tournament.
Since then I had some thoughts about my last games, so I decided to combine it in one post. In the last 2 tournaments I got good results, top “B” performance rating and good placement. So I am satisfied, but at the same time I see the following: in 5 games out of 8 I didn’t see the “killer” move 2 times and 4 times – saw it, but didn’t play. Playing these moves would get me “A” performance rating – this is what I want, so maybe this is one of the things that separate me from getting to “A”.
By “saw it, didn’t play it” I mean that I saw the right move, made some calculations and didn’t like the result.
I’ll ask the critics to excuse me, but I went again to what Dan Heisman wrote.
“Definition: Board vision – your brain’s capability to interpret chess position and see what is legal and/or possible on the chess board. Board vision tells you what is possible, but does not differentiate what is good or bad. For example, quickly seeing that a bishop in one corner of the board attacks squares at the other corner is good board vision (even if the possible moves to those squares are unsafe or the attack is inconsequential).”
‘Evaluation – Looking at a position and deciding who is better, by how much, and why. Static evaluation is when you evaluate a given position without trying to move the pieces. Dynamic evaluation is done at the end of each analysis line, after you have tried to determine a potential sequence of moves.”
I am interested here in dynamic evaluation – this is what went wrong in the examples above.
I commented already the games from the first tournament in the posts “Missing the knockout punch” and “Step beyond the dogma”, so I’ll comment the first game from the last one. I played White with the guy rated 250 higher, Sicilian defense, Moscow variation.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. c4 Nc6 6. O-O g6 7. d4 cxd4
8. Nxd4 Bg7 9. Be3 Nf6 10. f3 O-O 11. Qd2 Rfc8 12. b3 Ne5 13. Nc3 a6
The following Black moves are actually the same as Crafty recommends, but I kind of started to like my position more, considering it more active.
14. Rfd1 Qd8 15. Rac1 Nfd7 16. Nd5 Nc5 17. Bg5
17. … Bf8 18. Qe3 Nc6 19. f4 Nxd4 20. Qxd4 Ne6 Computer wants Black to play f6 on moves 17-19.
21. Qf2 Nxg5 22. fxg5 Rc6 23. Rf1 Qe8. Computer doesn’t like Nxg5 ( me too at the time), estimate goes from 0.8 to 1.5, and 1.8 after Qe8.
24. Rc3 Bg7 25. Rf3 e6. Here is the moment, when my board vision did not work at all.
So, I played 26. Nf6+ ( he asked me after the game, why didn’t you play Nb6?). Of course 26. Nb6 Rb8 27. Rxf7, with computer evaluation 1.9. I think, I was too much concentrated on king-side, otherwise I can’t explain it. This is exactly what Dan Heisman meant, seeing that queen on one end of the board defends the square on another end.
26. … Bxf6 27. Rxf6 Rc7 28. h4 Qe7 29. h5 Kg7 30. Qd4 Kg8
On moves 29 and 30 I miss Rxf7. Not that I didn’t see it, I didn’t want to give up my 2 rooks for queen and pawn. What I didn’t see is that I get d6 pawn too – bad dynamic evaluation. Also I was obsessed with threat on a1-h8 diagonal.
31. h6 e5 32. Qxd6 Qxd6 33. Rxd6. Giving up the pawn after 31. …e5 wasn’t necessary, Rf8 keeps it safe.
33. … Kf8 34. Rd5 Re7 35. Rfd1 Ke8 36. c5 Rc8 37. b4 Re6 38. a4 Ra8 39. Rd7 Re7 40. R7d6 Rc8 41. R1d5 Rb8 42. b5 axb5 43. axb5
Rc8 44. c6 bxc6 45. bxc6
45. … Re6 – decisive mistake 46. Rxe6+ fxe6 47. Rd7
47. … Rxc6 48. Rxh7 Rc1+ 49. Kh2 Rf1 50. Rg7 Rf4 51. h7 Black resigned 1-0
It was my first win against “A” class player, the game that I think I played well strategically, but the stuff in the title of the post could leave me with worse than I got result.
December 30, 2008 at 6:26 am
I dont know who has said it or where i read it, can be possibly Dan Heisman, but when one sees to the scope, path, of a piece one must see to all squares of row, file and diagnal as if those aren’t blocked by any piece or pieces at all.
If you do so you may see some possible tactics which can help you like for example: if i move that pawn then my queen attacks his undefended knight, or if i can remove his d5 pawn then my queen can move to the a2-g8 diagnal with a double attack namely check and his bishop on b7.
With other words, dont let the scope of a piece stop at the first piece that blocks it path, look at the whole board.
Will look at the game later when i have the posibility to have a board handy.
December 30, 2008 at 10:59 pm
chesstiger – it’s an interesting idea – seeing “through”, I’ll have it in mind.
January 3, 2009 at 4:57 am
Sounds like something Irving Chernev or Edward Lasker would have said, or Aaron Nimzovich.
Regarding the “board vision” move, I didn’t see Nb6 either, as I was infatuated with the pawn recapturing at f6, and then follow it up with the h-pawn racing up and capturing on g6, so after fxg, Black looks horribly busted over there.
His ..e5 move looked horribly appalling, and I think that was effectively the last move of the game before (your) technique took over. He could have defended Rae8, then if you back off your rook (you can’t sack it), he can play Qf8.
Beats goin’ down easy like a blitz game. hehe. If I were him, I might have felt secretly embarrassed by that move afterword, especially knowing he was the higher rated player and therefore is the one to supposedly introduce complications. His e5 could have even been a blunder that he flicked out before he realized. You’ve gotta have a sense of humor when you play this game. ;-D
January 3, 2009 at 5:06 am
I think everyone tends to scr*w up the most when they are winning, it’s what makes chess amusing and also frustrating, ego gets in the way of analysis. I just refuted some guys rook sack (he was 1831 on FICS). Poor b@stard, he totally had me ( I didn’t even know how to play the opening) but instead he wanted to “pretty up” his gift, or “got too fancy” as the used to say in tennis.
I lose winning positions like a cliche. Craziest was the other day I saw winning a rook by force in five moves, but since there were no clock increments and I had a minute left, I was afraid that that would “take too long” and instead played an imbecillic move (trying to win “quicker”) and lost. Usually it’s when I run out of energy that I make these “mistakes”, but really I am just gassed.
January 3, 2009 at 5:10 am
My first win against an “A” player in a real tournament game, I offered some obviously bogus pawn sacs from a busted position, he took them and I won. Thank goodness for “Greek gifts”.
Even in my game mentioned in that last post, I chucked out a few pawns (I fessed up to my busted position and went for activity/development; amazing how often one can get away with it.
January 3, 2009 at 6:27 am
Wait. After you played h6, he could have played Raf8, then if that rook goes back he can play e5. If you play e5 first, then he has dxe Qxe Qc5 check, trading queens.
It’s gotta be fatigue or poor time-management not to see that move.
January 3, 2009 at 6:42 am
Or if after Raf8
Kh1 Rd7
e5 d5
looks fine, too.
He pointed out your error, but I don’t read where he admitted to you his own. I wouldn’t chastise you first for missing something without admitting my own egregious, game-losing error first. And on that note, the analysis in my first comment was quite wrong. But hey, I’m not using a chess-engine on this.
January 3, 2009 at 11:22 pm
LinuxguyOnFICS – yeah, e5 was a serious mistake, I agree. I think, those diagonal/vertical threats got him, or maybe fatigue. 45. … Re6 was bad too (he admitted it, by the way), even worse, though maybe less visible. It wasn’t his best game, for sure, he won next 4 games in a row (how stimulating a loss can be
).
January 4, 2009 at 3:04 am
You are right, he should have tried harder to hang on there, even though it’s hard to blame him. Rec7 looks best/only. There should follow Rxe+ Kf8.
I only made my comment emphatically because that’s like a couple hours of one’s life spent over a tournament game. I thought that bad, but now I realize skittles is worse.
I like to play 15 15 or longer, but when I allow myself to play someone 15 0, first of all I will play someone only weaker, then I hedge my moves too much, play safe, without creativity (creativity and persistence are vital to real chess). But instead, in this last 15 0 game I just played, I am looking at 4 knights, 14 pawns, and 3 1/2 minutes on my clock, so I go for something dumb that looks like it will make the game end more quickly one way or the other, which is an absurd notion to real chess. I quit skittles from here on out, it’s dumb. 15 15 minimum or I won’t play, if someone wants to say they are better at fast chess than me, I will let them, tired of the clock being my master.
With your opponent, I think what may have spurred him on afterwards was how hard he had to work for it. Creativity and persistence or perspicacity, and anyone who plays a full game like that has some perspicacity left in the tank.
January 4, 2009 at 3:15 am
The other problem with 15 0 players below 1800 on FICS, the ones that really know their openings are about as rare as hen’s teeth, and a tournament player really does need to know their openings and study the book on them. I can see in your games you are worlds better at openings than these people I have played with online, in my experience of thousands of games (which tells me, that they ain’t gonna change).
January 4, 2009 at 10:00 pm
LinuxguyOnFICS – thanks, my opening knowledge is still needs improvement. If you play with higher rated opponents, you should somehow to be able to switch the opening into something you know, otherwise you can get into real trouble or play position you don’t quite like (and lose there).
January 6, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The looking through pieces, projecting lines of force to the edge of the board, is something I wrote about, which I stole from Buckley and from my old coach. This seems a pretty universal heuristic with the top level players, but something I still have to remind myself to do.
Incidentally, this is a really good blog and I need to link to it now!
January 6, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Blue Devil Knight – I read that post, interesting. I wish I could see all these lines as well as that master
. I agree with Buckley, that “aura-visualization habit is a great way to improve your analysis skills”, I definitely should try it. It was another loss in that tournament where I think not seeing through contributed to it. Of course, I know it, it’s called “roentgen”, skewing, etc., but I never used it as a conception/general idea.