Rapid Tournament

Here's an interesting loss, although I think part of the reason of the loss was that it was really really quick. I also didn't understand how the modern defense works, and missed some interesting chances.




I was down to the last minutes and lost on time. I'd post my wins but they were rather uninteresting. Maybe I should ditch these weekend swiss.

Update: This game was part of a relatively successful tournament scoring 2.5/4 against expert opposition. For theory buffs, 10.e5! secures a decisive advantage heading into the endgame. For example, 10...Nc5 11.0-0-0 dxe5 12.Bxc5 Qxc5 13.Qxb7! heading into a razor attack with upon proper defense leads to a lost endgame. However the game turns into a dynamically equal game where white is outplayed.

The Ball Is Still Rolling (and small review of Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual)

Haven't posted in a bit.

Back to back OTB tournaments coming... I'll be posting games and results here. My time currently had been occupied working and basically in this time with the economy this bad, trying to be a chessmaster can arguably be digging your own grave!

I purchased Mark Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual, and this book is sheer self esteem killer. It is a very difficult book not only by its sheer analytical content, but the work on the reader's part is very demanding. If your skills in analysis are weak, then trying to analyze deeply will take much time on your part, but that is the purpose of this book really - to highlight your analytical weaknesses and fine tune your intuition.

 Just from the first article, it is easy to get lost in the complications and spend hours analyzing over 100 variations maybe 15 moves long each. A lot of the earlier games are like this - looking for a true verdict of the game because the computer often cannot. Much of that content isn't too practical if you were to take the whole game as a training method (perhaps if you are already IM/GM this might be different), but each segment of analysis can be treated as a training exercise, which the author himself duly suggests.

The more practical material of this book is in the middle of the book, where you can simply take the moves and stop at the diagrams and try to think along the lines of the titled players. This is a superb training method advocated by Mark himself and certainly much more practical. But most of this book are gems you have to unearth yourself, lazy/busy quick fix readers should try to find something else that has much more practical content, because this book does not mess around. 

To sum it up, you don't read the book, the book reads YOU.

I digress, I'll post my games this weekend.

Tickets and... Money

Bleh, my tournament plans have been blown since my already tight budget, and what was left of what I could spend went to a speeding ticket.

This got me thinking about the issue of whether or not chess is really "cheap" to play. Proponents of the game will tell you that it is a relatively cheap game to play and enjoy, and will not cost as much as an Xbox, sports equipment, the list goes on.

I thought about how much I was spending on tournaments, and this is the money I had to pay play in a local tournament. (This is all US dollar amounts.)

USCF Dues: 40$

State Federation Dues: 60$

Tournament fees: 20-60$

Now, this is taking consideration that I don't even own a very nice chess set - one of those cheapo ones that barely get by in tournament play. Also, I don't even own a personal clock. Let's see how much some of these things would cost.

Chronos Clock : 100$

Nice set: 30-40$

Cheap clock: 30$

Cheap set: 15-20$

I suppose this a lot of this is static, and some of the fees are only yearly, or monthly. But look how much I spent in one of the bigger United States Events. I suppose it is correct for it to cost a bit more, being the "national" open and all, but there isn't much stronger competition around where I live so I have to travel to these things just for some exposure to stronger opponents.

National Open:

(I had already invested in the "standard static" equipment.)

The Commute : 100$ in gas

Housing: 200$

Tournament Fees: 120$ approximately

This doesn't really take account to all the expenses, but its already a picture of how much it may add up just to play chess. Take in account I went to VEGAS with a budget that small  (just enough to eat, stay there, and play chess, and an occasional drink) and barely scraped by.

I suppose it isn't TOO bad compared to other things, like poker, but damn, speeding is the last thing I thought that would have affected my game.

Tabiyas

Hmm what are tabiyas... it's kind of like the battlefield where two players will play when the resulting position comes up from a few very standard moves of theory (thats my guess, I'm sure I'm missing something here.)

Apparently, my openings suck really bad. I noticed from annotating some of my older games, that I was fighting back from slightly worse positions, or even near lost positions and getting out of the struggle with an advantage. I think this is going to be bad for the future development of my chess, but this is no easy task on top of a normal training schedule, and on top of a "normal" life.

My coach stumped me on about move 5 into the French Defense, which kind of pissed me off because I didn't want to engage in a long theoretical debate for the duration of the time we spent together (a lot of the ideas are covered in textbooks and database dumps). But he made a good point - why do your openings suck so bad?! 

 

I noticed when I was studying a variation in the Dragon Sicilian, the main tabiya was considered to end with your typical Yugoslav position with the bishop on c4, and then rook on c8. However I ended up having a bunch of Be2's instead of Bc4's which made it slightly confusing, especially from the fact that I had spent much of my time studying the "main lines". 

Even worse as an e4 player, Black often opts for these really stupid sidelines that work in rapid games, such as a really ugly a6 b5 plan, or some immediate Na5 action, and in some lines white has already pushed h4 or even h5 and some he hasn't even touched the h pawn.

My god it is brutal losing some of these caveman attack games to 1200 - 1500 players. I don't even know how it happens, as Bobby Fischer once said, any patzer can pry open the h-file and throw the kitchen sink and hope to win. Unfortunately it seems like a complete self esteem killer to be much stronger overall (if game wasn't blitz and razor sharp I think the theoretical gap would close a bit).

I guess it pays to understand all tabiyas of a certain system you want to play, in my case in the dragon, the battlefield consists of trying to equalize in the meek Be2 lines, and aiming for sharp play with the black pieces in the classical Yugoslav line with Bc4, but then it begs the question - how important is the opening? 

Is it worth it to sacrifice this time rather than to study tactics, middlegames, endgames? I don't even feel sometimes that it's possible to actually calculate anything in the Dragon, you kind of just make a guess and hope it ends up well... bleh, watching me wade through these craptacular sidelines in blitz makes me want to puke, but losing I suppose weedles out a lot of the bad lines.

I was playing some themed blitz with an 1850 player, and it seemed like after the opening tabiya was reached, even if theory was met, both players were really on their own devices, and whoevers tactics were superior really mattered in the end. I sometimes feel that some of these sacrifices though, are way too standard, and it almost feels like luck when one side wins. It's kind of an odd way to play chess if you ask me - it's somewhat of a lottery when it's this sharp, and both players can't calculate worth their salt. I suppose it's a sharp mix of intuitive tactics, some calculation, and some positional ideas all imbedded, and I can say that most club players are incapable in all these areas, which really does make some opening tabiyas feel like a lottery drawing.

Anyway I suppose analyzing a ton of these games might help, it looks like even a lot of strong players were felled by just opening knowledge in this line alone... maybe it's time to ditch my desire to play c5, or maybe have it as a surprise weapon.

And I was Rybka...

I was thinking over some opening lines instead of actually training (I suppose general opening studies is training...), and decided to play a bunch of themed games against a 2300 rated blitz player named pollock. I also play on FICS, and I had encountered him, and thought of him as a general nice guy. I had asked him some questions regarding opening play, and he had a lot of insightful ideas.

I was asking him if he wanted to help me learn some Sicilian tabiyas, and he accepted. My rating on FICS is about 2200, but on ICC I was rated about 1400 in blitz because my mouse was broken when I had played all my provisional games. We were to play some games in the Sicilian Dragon where neither of us were booked up, but he was getting torn to shreds in the tactical melee, and decided to start using his main opening weapons because he was angry at losing.

In our unrated games, the score was heavily in my favor in the themed games. He started getting angry and started switching move order to try to confuse me and played really offbeat Sicilians, when he agreed to play themed games in the Sicilian Dragon. 

In this game, I suppose he had enough of losing, and he moved to his main weapons in the Ruy Lopez for no apparent reason, and barraged me with insults, which I find hilarious.

On about move 19, I receieved the message:

pollock: you are computer assisted

mkeaton: that is pretty flattering but i am not cheating

pollock: ive reported you

mkeaton: go ahead, im not even cheating

pollock: dont worry i already reported you

mkeaton: lol... this is extremely flattering...

On move 41, I think he went absolutely mentally berserk, believing that his assumption that I was a computer. He sent a large amount of obscenities and I sat there laughing. I think this bodes well for my chances for Candidate Master, if I can play like Rybka ;).

It's surprising to me how some people are extremely friendly when they think they are better than you, standing on a high horse. I suppose I'm not any better but I don't like double standards. This same guy was telling me how to play chess a few days ago, and upon losing a few blitz games, goes berserk and calls me a bunch of obscenities.

On a lighter note, Vojislav Milanovic has revealed himself to be quite adept deadpan humor and sarcasm.

voja(IM): alright i need you to send me your latest losses from tournament games or standard games from ICC

voja(IM): it should be an easy task 

mkeaton: i havent lost in the last few tournaments ive played

voja(IM): im sure you can look for them

mkeaton: no really, i don't remember losing a serious tournament game since vegas, which is almost me not losing this whole year.

voja(IM): well, you dont need lessons from me, you are already world champion :)

No leads...

I'm at the point where  I don't think I can get much stronger unless I study a whole bunch of random things intensely. So I enlisted the help of Vojislav Milanovic, an International Master.

I came to this conclusion pretty easily, as I have a library of chess books of about 35 books, and that I am one of those  "have all of Dvoretsky's books and still haven't got anywhere with chess" players. It's slightly depressing being in this group of chessplayers. It's almost like owning these books is like some sort of cardinal sin.

Anyway, I feel even with Voja's help, I think it is going to take a massive load of work on my part as well - as he can only help me with identifying weaknesses, not covering them. I believe this is a crisis many players have - discovering their weaknesses, through analyzing their own games, or having professionals identify them, and doing absolutely nothing about it except play another 300 blitz games, or are lazy.

Alright...

First post!

I one day said to myself, that I'd try to become at least category 1 chess player (2200). For some reason amongst my other hobbies, I chose to dedicate myself for this one for now. I guess its an arbitrary choice.

I decided to look around for other blogs and see what methods other people are using, and this is basically what I found.

There are a lot of blogs out there, I can't really recall how many of them I've seen where they just give up and never make it, or relying on a type of cookie cutter method, or ineffective, or cumbersome methods.

I may not remember correctly, but I saw someone was trying to lay out a daily training method that is about 4-5 hours long. I think most people will burn out from studying chess for 1-2 hours a WEEK let a lone daily.

Another popular topic revolves around CTS (Chess Tactics Server @ chess.emrald.net, where there is a lot of free tactics puzzles), where chess enthusiasts solve over 60,000 of these beasts, and their user rank wasn't moving very much.

Another one I've seen, is some sort of "cycles" method proposed by Michael De La Maza, which is interesting to me. I think it develops good tactical intuition, but not necessarily strong analytical technique, such as calculating deep variations.

So yeah, so far these are the "shortcut" methods I've seen in chess training on the web, which basically consists of solving thousands of exercises. I'm going to enlist some professional help, although I can already guess that it will contain a more classical regimen in chess studies, such as openings to middlegames to endgames.