It was a round 1 of the Mondays tournament. My opponent was a girl rated 1475. I had White and we played Ruy Lopez. We got a position with a closed center. I missed 22. e5 dxe5 23. Bf5 winning an exchange.
I tried to develop an attack on the kingside, she was maneuvering pretty well. Somehow I lost the initiative and could get worse after 32… g5. I soon got annoyed with all that and decided to sacrifice a pawn in the center. Actually I had to play 36. d6 after her 35… dxe5 that was a mistake and I would be much better.
Anyway the position became dynamical and not easy to play, that was my intention. 45… Qd8 was not the best move, better Qa7. Then she made a decisive mistake playing 44… Kg7. I saw the possibility to promote with check and played it. Being almost a rook down, she blundered and resigned.
Rolling Pawns 
February 9, 2017 at 1:23 am
The end of this game was pretty funny, predictable.
8.h3 I think you’re supposed to play 8.c3 first, just in case they play the Marshall Attack with 8….d5, then the h3 pawn would look weird, minor quibble, probably not going to make a difference with this ratings gap.
13.Nbd2!? At first I thought you could just play 13.b3, but when she trades off that knight she is losing a bunch of tempos, so 13…NxNd2?
16.d5 16.Bf4 looks pretty natural because it takes advantage of her missing queen’s knight, which usually controls d4 and e5, but your move cuts the board in half, and also takes advantage of her missing knight.
17.Nh2 It looks like your plan was to play f4, and then she foiled it.
I missed 22.e5 as well. I often see these shots OTB, but it’s even more fun when the game drags on positionally like this, and you get more of a challenge from the game.
24.Rcd1 A star-move! I like how you take control of the position, and then everything comes in under your terms.
25.Ng3 25.g4 looks playable …BxN, 26.exBf5, and you have a pretty good attack it looks like.
26.Be3 26.Qf3 with the idea of e5 looks strong…Qf6, 27.BxB QxB, 28.e5.
33.f3 33.Re3 looks more natural, with Red1 idea, but it’s hard to imagine the win.
33…Qa5?! 33…Nd7 looks best.
36.fxe5 I thought your idea was to play 36.d6 as well, but at least you are forcing things while her queen is offside.
38…Qd8 38…Nd7 looked more natural, but passed pawn positions in the middle-game, after an exchange of rooks no less, is usually tough to defend against.
39.Re2? An obvious misunderstanding of the position. After this, I expected you to find a win.
40.b3 I liked this move, put the ball back in her court, and I figured she’d play …Qd7.
43.Qc6 43 d7 is winning, too.
44…Kg7. 44…Kh7 was another try, but then 45.QxNf6 QxQ, 46.dxR(Q) QxB is a winning line for White, and you could even throw in 46.Bxg6+ there first.
Those passed-pawns are murder, and a 1400 player is usually not going to know this. Very nice victory! The differences in rating classes was obvious, but still a fun game to go through, and I’m sure not an easy one OTB. She made you sweat a little there for a second, but you were on top of how to construct a decisive attack. 🙂 Congratulations on a well-played game!
February 9, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Thank you! I will comment in detail later.
I played at work a couple of rapid games with a guy from warehouse, he was better than anybody I played before, got Scotch Game along the theory line.
I kept my “champion” status :), won both games.
I commented on your last game.
February 9, 2017 at 4:16 pm
lol. They are probably no match for you. I like playing Scotch Game along theory lines, and in blitz I can often play myself out of busted positions for/as Black. Scotch is fun, and interesting, and doesn’t get played quite enough by blitz players.
I’ll check out your comment, and put some notes to my game.
February 9, 2017 at 4:54 pm
That’s cool that you won your games, and now they know you’re smart (but they probably knew that already). 🙂 I often play a lot worse informally like that, and there are some very bright people to play against who aren’t otherwise as into chess as we are.
February 10, 2017 at 11:37 am
Thanks. 🙂
I played yesterday against 1800 rated boy, I had 2 draws with Black with him in the past. Surprisingly he played very aggressive on the Black side of Maroczy bind in Sicilian.
He counterattacked me on the kingside with g5 and h5, without castling.
Even so I considered it unpositional, I decided to play carefully and defend before I prove him wrong.
That was right, because computer actually doesn’t think he was worse.
There was a lot of tactical lines to consider and I played if not always the best, but at least good moves. After all the smoke disappeared, he found himself in a worse endgame and he also had less time, like 7 minutes to my 15-20. Probably because of that he made a few mistakes and facing an inevitable pawn loss suddenly blundered a fork, lost an exchange and resigned.
February 10, 2017 at 9:17 pm
Regarding 8. h3 – this is Anti-Marshall, because after 8… d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 White can play Qd3 instead of g3.
I didn’t want by playing 13. b3 to take away a square from the bishop.
Yeah, you are right, passed pawn created problems for her.
If 44… Kh7 45. Qxf6 then 45… Re1+ 46. Rxe1 Qxf6 47. Re8 and Black forces perpetual.
February 11, 2017 at 6:33 am
I played that same Master again tonight, Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, and he confirmed what you said that 8.h3 is Anti-Marshall, when I asked him about that move-order.
I replied to your last comment on my blog and posted the game from tonight.
Thanks for posting all of your analysis; I looked at it.
February 11, 2017 at 7:52 pm
I just saw your comment about your Thursday’s game. Nice job! 🙂
Sometimes, when the play gets tight, it’s better to be the one to have more time on the clock like that. 😉
February 14, 2017 at 8:12 am
I played yesterday with a guy rated 1619. I played numerous times with him, wins, one draw and one loss, when I was in horrible shape.
I was in it again, being stressed due to known you circumstances.
I had Black, played Queen’s Indian, didn’t play well positionally. I missed an early tactical shot which he didn’t see and later made a couple of tactical blunders which costed me the game. They decided to close the tournament just after two rounds to start the Club Championship earlier. This is to avoid playing it at the same time as Toronto Closed. It means that my rating will drop more.
February 14, 2017 at 4:46 pm
I would welcome that tournament ending early, though I know what you mean about feeling like you won against the 1400 player in round 1, got a ringer in round 2, and now want to play someone higher-rated in round 3. You probably also wanted to get back into the over 1800 category.
I see what you are saying about you have beaten him before. I have a bit more foreboding these days against 1500-1800 because if they are growing kids, they could be having a ratings spurt. Conversely, it’s almost the opposite for me, and possibly for you to, that we could have a bad day.
Little Calvin (with White) 1700 drew Josh 2286 earlier this month. Calvin is so tiny, I thought who let their kid into the bathroom unattended this late at night, oh it’s Calvin! haha. lol. He comes up to my waist. This kid is drawing the Master, too funny. That’s how it goes, Calvin does well against me, and knocked the Russian, who was almost Expert, back into the low 1900s.
The ratings thing is sort of a pride and vanity issue – we have a bit of pride, probably because we found it a necessary self-advocacy issue, and the chess world has it’s vanity, and quite a bit of it.
The more I study chess, the more I think, at least mental-engine-wise, that being able to blindfold a position just a bit, OTB, is a big key to how much one can handle, analysis-wise. I wasn’t able to do this well last Thursday, hardly at all by the end. I pumped myself with coffee and took a vitamin B but that is because I was out of it. I usually play worse when I do that and best when I take nothing because all drugs can ever do is mask what’s underneath, which always comes out during a chess game.
I believe you have the more difficult time-control as well. One thing about faster time controls is that it changes the nature of the game more to which opponent is more “out for blood”, moving rapidly. In the old days, I would imagine a person in this situation would have required great patience, as the calmer opponent can simply slow them down at times.
You were Black, so you have even more of an excuse, chess-wise. Having a bad day with Black is even worse, Black requires great patience, which is usually your strong-suit. You can post the game if you want, it would be interesting to find any improvements. I know how the weaknesses of those light squares go in that fianchetto. At least you played. Twice a week is brave to play for your schedule and drive. 🙂
February 15, 2017 at 12:59 am
Thanks for the consolation. 🙂
February 15, 2017 at 5:04 am
Your welcome, buddy! 🙂
You know, in the USCF, you would have a floor of 1800, since you have been Expert before (2036 or so, no less). My floor is 1700, because I was once 1906. When a Master in Denver plays at their 2200 floor, they are often jokingly referred to by others up there as the “floorMaster”.
I posted my game from tonight. I feel as though your style of play, your games, are far more responsibly played than mine. Both with moves, and on the clock, as you play more moves into dynamic positions than my games go. If my games go long, they are usually far more technical endgames, staid affairs, whereas your games have these lively mating attacks, possible from both sides, well after move forty. I should have played my game tonight in your style, but I dumped it into a potentially equal endgame once I got too low on time, as per the usual.
Nevertheless, my game tonight reminds me of your style of play. Some missed opportunities, sometimes too safely played, but with this inexorable pull throughout most of the game, to the point where it appears on the surface to have this controlled win look about it. Well, now I’ll have to delve deeper to find the lodes of moves and ideas that I missed during the game. I still think that if this had been your game, it would have gone on much longer, with queens on and sharp attacks from both sides, whereas my game had this typical, premature end to it.
February 15, 2017 at 10:59 am
Yeah, floor is not a bad idea. They just don’t have too many tournaments with big prizes here in Canada, so they don’t worry about that.
Congratulations on your win!
February 15, 2017 at 3:34 pm
Thank you! hehe, I think that’s funny that they have the smarts not to argue over prizes in Canada. I think that I should have an 1800 floor, and you should have an 1850 floor, and both of these are well-deserved. The only argument against a floor like this (besides prizes) would be that a player no longer cares (at all, really) about their results. It’s typically new, and up-and-coming players that drain the rating points from the more established players, and that is another reason for floors, to prevent too much rating drainage.
My rating is pretty tight up against 1800, over time, though occasionally dips below it. This would probably look relatively convincing for a statistician:
http://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12477167
Now, if I were to suddenly play in an U1800 tournament, for me I feel my rating would likely go down, like that could pull me into the U1800 vortex which could never be gotten out of by winning U1800 tournaments. Some players near 1800 or over, however, could field a perfect score against lower competition, but usually they would have to go into that section rated around 1875 or higher to do that.
Back when I was in California, and we played in quads, players would generally never make it out of their respective quads because it keeps one from getting experience against higher-rated players. In my case, I played a lot of games online, and tournaments at DeVry, and some self-study (but I sort of always had done that, it was mainly online play that had helped), so that when I got back to the quads I was fortunate enough to be placed into the highest quad that day, with a much lower-rating, and did quite well. I believe that happened two weeks in a row, and after that I kept up the results to keep me there. Well, that’s my story on rating floors. 😉
February 16, 2017 at 1:51 pm
USCF generates nice graphs, I wish they would do the same here.
We do not have floors, but we have bonus points, so if you play really well, you will be back quickly.
I usually do better in the tournaments with the same/somewhat higher than mine average rating.
I don’t do too well with the lower rated, I can’t beat them all. 🙂
February 17, 2017 at 10:34 am
I played yesterday with an old foe, expert, I have a good score with him.
I had Black and decided to switch to Semi-Slav, I beat him in a somewhat similar opening and after two losses with Queen’s Indian I needed a break.
I got a very good position after the opening, with a pressure on a weak pawn e3, it was like ~0.6. I tried to breakthrough and at one moment spent no less than 15 minutes (with 70/15 time control) on a rook sacrifice, but eventually found a rebuttal, computer confirmed that it was not sound. I continued to maneuver, but still couldn’t find a winning plan and he didn’t show any desire for a draw.
Then I was found myself in a time trouble and having about 4 minutes left I blundered a very important pawn, then made another big blunder and resigned. I will finish that tournament with ~1800 performance rating and my rating will go up a bit. I will be still able to play in the top section there and hopefully the top section on Monday will be extended because it’s a championship.
February 17, 2017 at 4:18 pm
Yeah, Semi-Slav is one of those openings I’ve been meaning to trot out, but rarely get the chance to (never online or OTB – once OTB years ago), so it would still be entirely experimental if I got one; it’s not a safe opening like the Nimzo-Indian, however.
I feel that openings with a small-center, particularly that opening, is really a 40/2, G/1 opening, but, okay, what can you do other than to book up or not play it against higher-rateds. In openings with a big center, I feel one can tack back and forth from playing tactically to positionally, which helps on the clock, but that option practically doesn’t exist in a Semi-Slav Defense.
I was looking at this game this morning, the only one that Nigel took from Kasparov in their 2011 blitz-match, and a King’s Gambit no less. It’s interesting how, even in blitz, Nigel didn’t go for any tactical funny-business, and kept positional ways to improve. For example, instead of 16.c3, White could play 16.Nd5 Qxc4, 17.QxQ RxQ, 18.Nb6 forks Bd7 and Rc4, both of which are hanging, but it’s 0.0 equal, according to Stockfish, after 18…e3! (threatening …e2). Nigel’s solid move continues to build his position. Kasparov blunders positionally with the obviously desirable-looking move 26…g5??, which fails tactically to 27.Nxf5, but Short calmly plays the only slightly less, but still completely winning positional continuation 27.Bg3 instead. Nigel never missed where his positional trumps were.
[Event “Your Next Move Blitz”]
[White “Short, Nigel D”]
[Black “Kasparov, Garry”]
[Site “Leuven”]
[Round “6”]
[Annotator “”]
[Result “1-0”]
[Date “2011.10.09”]
[WhiteElo “2698”]
[BlackElo “2812”]
[PlyCount “69”]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bb3 d5 6. exd5 cxd5 7. d4 Bd6 8. Nge2 Nc6 9. Bxf4 0-0 10. 0-0 Be6 11. Qd2 Be7 12. Rae1 Re8 13. Kh1 a6 14. Ng3 b5 15. Nd1 Na5 16. c3 Nxb3 17. axb3 Ne4 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Qc2 Rc8 20. Ne3 Bh4 21. Rd1 f5 22. d5 Bd7 23. c4 Qb6 24. d6 bxc4 25. bxc4 Qc6 26. b3 g5 27. Bg3 Bxg3 28. hxg3 Qc5 29. Qf2 Rf8 30. Rd5 Qb6 31. Nxf5 Qxf2 32. Rxf2 e3 33. Ne7+ Kg7 34. Rxg5+ Kh6 35. Rxf8 1-0
Still, I think it’s great you played a tactical opening and spent time looking at a rook sac. Great job just for doing that! It will help you later on, tactically, that you are looking that hard for tactics in your games. With only a 15 second increment, I think it goes back to the old rule of thumb I once had for G/90, d/5, which is to just allow the flag. Sounds counter-intuitive, but there is no other way I would have won so many games with one second remaining on my clock (incidentally, the increment has slowed down my reaction time to pressing the clock, and now I try to not get below ten seconds, as throwing away a game with half a minute remaining is still a waste, and I’ve done that too many times now, like on last Thursday for example).
That’s good that it might work out so that you are in the over 1800 group next month! I would lean on the TD a bit to get him to lower it to 1750 or something like that, and get a friend of his to agree with you. 😉 😀 No need worrying about that every month if it makes sense not to, and you can get it changed. I know how it is though because you don’t want to be 1799 anyway on a personal-best type of level.
February 17, 2017 at 4:26 pm
https://en.chessbase.com/post/garry-kasparov-beats-nigel-short-4-5-3-5-in-belgium-blitz
Sometimes, I find that if I miss the tactics early, I have trouble finding them late as well, and the best I can often hope for is to get my opponents to stare at their lousy-placed pieces, and hopefully they can find more positional concessions for me. 😀 I wouldn’t think or say this if we actually got three hours to play a game (for a six hour game).
February 17, 2017 at 11:43 pm
I didn’t play tonight, waited til the last minute to take a bye. I’ve been getting over some flu-like virus for the past week (Tuesdays game seemed to stress out my immune system and make it worse – analyzed other games for hours after, of course).
I wanted to play, but lied down instead for a couple hours because I was feeling a bit dizzy and my body wanted me to. Of course, I feel a lot better now that I did nothing physically/mentally. hehe. Sucks, but I did all I could to get ready for the game tonight, just bad timing.
February 20, 2017 at 6:19 am
Here is a nice game that I played against the Colle Stonewall the other day.
https://www.denverchess.com/games/view/16531
February 20, 2017 at 3:06 pm
I saw that Short-Kasparov game, interesting. I probably told you that a few years ago I played against Short in simul and faced Evans gambit, it seems he likes gambits.
If you are sick, it is never a good idea to play, I learned it the hard way.
Your Denver club game is funny, what’s with your rating?
February 20, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Oh, hahaha, that was just a Chess dot com game. LM Brian Wall decided to post it there, probably because he must have liked it enough to.
Yes, whenever I see Short playing an amateur he is playing either some gambit or aggressive variation not normally played at GM levels. I’m guessing that you didn’t write down the moves to that game and post it(?) I can’t recall that game, but I definitely believe you.
Yeah, even today I have the post-nasal drip and am losing on slow blitz on chessdotcom. You are right, a rating is really a measure of one’s highest average performance level, and performing while sick is, well, a dumb idea, yes, hehe.
I’ll be fine by tomorrow, when I play again. For me, I always get the post-nasal drip at the end of getting over a sickness (I’m not sneezing much either, just a lowered energy level).
Good luck in your game tonight! 🙂
February 20, 2017 at 8:14 pm
I did not play tonight, we have a Family Day holiday.
I do not see the score of the game with Short on my computer, I have it from 2012 and it was in 2011. Anyway here is a link:
http://annexchessclub.com/2011/09/nigel-short-simul-results/
February 21, 2017 at 3:01 pm
I vaguely remember that game, and it sounds about that long ago. I remember you played, after b4, the …Bc5-e7 line. It seemed like maybe you played two games with that line, but maybe it was only in the game against Short that you faced the Evans Gambit(?).
February 21, 2017 at 7:06 pm
I found the post:
Unfortunately this moronic chessflash/kvchess lost all the games.
Good luck tonight!
February 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm
Oh, yeah, bummer on that (although I can probably get a grasp on what happened in your game from your notes! 🙂 )
Thanks! I posted my game from last night.
February 22, 2017 at 2:15 pm
I can find some of your games using the Wayback machine, which archived three of your blog pages, but not the one for the date of that simul:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120101000000*/http://chessflash.com/blog/403
Here is one of those games that I pulled up, for example:
[Event “Swiss 1800+”]
[Site “?”]
[Date “2011.12.01”]
[Round “5”]
[White “Nasirov, Ilyas”]
[Black “Me”]
[Result “1/2-1/2”]
[ECO “D87”]
[WhiteElo “2062”]
[BlackElo “1814”]
[Annotator “Houdini 1.5a w32”]
[PlyCount “92”]
[EventDate “2011.12.01”]
[EventType “swiss”]
[EventRounds “7”]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 O-O 8.
Ne2 Nd7 (8… c5 9. O-O Nc6 10. Be3 Bg4 11. f3 Na5 12. Bxf7+ Rxf7 13. fxg4) 9.
O-O c5 {last book move} 10. Bb3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Nf6 12. f3 b6 13. Be3 Ba6 14. Re1
Rc8 15. Rc1 Qd7 16. Qd2 Rxc1 17. Rxc1 Rc8 18. Nf4 Bb7 19. Rxc8+ Qxc8 20. e5 Ne8
21. Qb4 e6 22. d5 Bxd5 23. Nxd5 exd5 24. Bxd5 Qd7 25. Qe4 Nc7 26. Bb3 Ne6 27.
f4 Nc5 28. Bxc5 bxc5 29. Kf1 Qd4 30. Qxd4 (30. Qa8+ Bf8 31. Qd5 Qxf4+ 32. Kg1 Kg7
33. g3 Qf5 34. Kg2 Be7 {[-0.18]}) 30… cxd4 31. Ke2 Bf8 32. Kd3 Bc5 33. Kc4 Bb6
34. a4 Kf8 35. Bc2 Ke7 36. a5 (36. Kb5 f6 {[0.08]} (36… d3 37. Bxd3 Be3 38. Ka6 f6 39. exf6+ Kxf6
40. h3 h5 41. h4 Bf2 42. Bc2 Bd4) 37. exf6+ Kxf6 38. a5 Bc7 39. Ka6 Kf7 40. Be4 {[0.01]}) 36… Bxa5
37. Kxd4 Bb6+ 38. Ke4 Bg1 39. h3 Bc5 40. g4 f6 41. Bb3 fxe5 42. Kxe5 Bb6 43.
Bg8 Bc7+ 44. Ke4 h6 45. f5 Kf6 46. fxg6 Kxg6 1/2-1/2
February 22, 2017 at 2:19 pm
So, for example, if you put the name of the file in, you can still retrieve the files from chessflash, they still have the files on their site, but their is no directory of the names of the files from your blog. If you know the names of the files, you could get all the games. Possibly could contact the admin for that site to request the games. For example:
http://chessflash.com/sites/default/files/users/rollingpawns09/Me_Krupka1.pgn
February 24, 2017 at 10:45 am
Thank you for the information about chessflash.
I played yesterday, had White with an expert, boy, I lost to him in an equal game in the past. Despite of playing Ruy Lopez, I didn’t find the right plan.
Then after going to the washroom I lost concentration and made a wrong pawn sacrifice. Then soon I lost an exchange and after resisting for some time I resigned before getting mated.
February 25, 2017 at 4:40 am
Your welcome!
Sorry about your game. At least you got an Expert. I got an Expert and a tough game as well – posted my game from tonight.
You might want to post a game, it sounds like that was an interesting attack that he got. That’s too bad that you lost concentration for that move. During my game, when he spent a long time and I got too bored or excited, I would tell myself which squares all of the pieces and pawns were on so that I could blindfold a little if necessary, or so that at least my subconscious might remember the squares everything was on in case we started to blitz. My game did get blitzish at the end.