Posts
...and I'm not really very good. I went to the US Open in Indianapolis (my hometown) and hit a wall. I didn't have any will to get into positions (to calculate deeply, that is), to do the hard work over the board that is required for success. I almost liked it better when I was 1600 and a win or loss seemed to be more a result of inspiration than grinding. I admit, I was a little out of sorts as I was spending the days with friends and family that I rarely see, but more was going on than that. I simply wasn't enjoying playing. I was lucky to score the 1.5 points that I actually managed. The loss to Magness wasn't such a big deal as he's a talented junior on the rise, but the loss to Pressici was the worst upset I've suffered in years. I even saw the tactic he laid on me before he played it, but I was too lazy to do more than a superficial assessment of its power. It wasn't that I didn't know I should look more deeply into it, I just didn't have the will.
It may be that after I get my mental shit together I'll be able to play well again. I've been pretty out of sorts on many levels since I wasn't selected for a Project Management job (I got through two interviews and was very confident), as my employment outlook is pretty bleak. Chess is very mood dependent, as least for me, and I have not been in a mood to play serious chess for some time. I hope I have the first again by September, as I like the idea of playing in the Miami Open. If I were to play in my current mental state it would just be throwing money away. I'd probably end up withdrawing like I did from the US Open.
Ironically, not getting the PM job freed me up to take the chess teaching position that I'd been offered. It's only an hour a week and thus won't screw up my unemployment as I continue to search for work. The irony lies in my accepting the position only as I become less personally enthusiastic about chess. It may reignite my love of the game to see it played by kids without agenda or fear of losing rating points, or it may just make me even more tired of chess by forcing me to think about it when I'd rather not. I'm hoping for the latter. We'll see.
Almost as a post-script, here are the games I played. Go through them and you'll probably see why I withdrew. All I can say is that I played as well as I could with everything else going on in my life and in my head. It was really bad timing that the Open came when it did.
Roopnarine-Rampley.pgn
Rampley-Magness.pgn
Presicci-Rampley.pgn
Rampley-Yang.pgn
Showing posts with label King's indian defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label King's indian defense. Show all posts
Friday, August 14, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
A Painful Return to Tournament Play
The US Class Championships in Boca Raton was my first weekend tournament in some time. I was using it primarily as a tune up for the US Open, and while the tournament was great for that purpose it was a competitive failure at +0=4-1. This was my first time playing in the 'A' group, and I must say that it was extremely tough going. I was repeatedly outplayed in the middle game, though I must say that my openings and endings proved up to the task. This was very gratifying since I've been working on both a great deal, but the pattern of getting a better position, becoming much worse in the middle game and then only saving the position due to superior technique was not encouraging.
I really shouldn't be so hard on myself, I suppose. In some senses I performed well: I overcame one of my worst habits, namely giving up (or at least becoming extremely pessimistic) upon realizing that I was worse. In this tournament, each time I recognized that I was worse I pulled myself together and resolved to hold the ending. In each case, I was able to do so, though not without considerable help from my opponents. The one game I lost I lost due to tactical oversight, certainly not from giving up.
It is interesting how even players of ~1900 not only seemed to play the ending very badly, but almost seemed to stop trying when they reached winning positions. It's as if the prospect of playing out a better ending was enough to sap their energy and resolve. I don't know why they expected the win to just happen, but that seemed to be a consistent mindset of my opponents throughout the tournament. Here's an example. I was so lost in the first round that at least three times I resolved to resign if my opponent played the best move. These were not terribly hard moves to find, mind you. Each time however, he let me off the hook. See for yourself.
Machado-Rampley.pgn
Not an auspicious start, but at least I hadn't given up when faced with a difficult (in this case truly hopeless) defense. Garrett once told me I needed to become an 'old school scrapper from way back', and while he was half joking he was still completely right. The more I've come to see chess as a battle (as opposed to a display of skills and knowledge developed away from competition) the more successful I've been. The better I get, the more the psychological aspects matter. Toughness, resolve, these qualities can't be overestimated.
The second round was unlike the first in pretty much every way, apart from my playing badly in the opening. This was the first time I'd trotted out the Russian variation in response to the Grunfeld, and I knew there was a very real possibility that I wouldn't be prepared from a theoretical standpoint having only studied the most critical lines. My opponent in fact deviated early, but I didn't handle it correctly. What followed after was a mistake that indicative of my whole tournament, as well as all my chess as of late.: a tendency to enter complex positions merely for the sake of complexity, even when I had better 'solid' options available. I too often sacrificed a win in hopes of creating a brilliancy. While I got away with it here, mostly because I was white, it led to some really bad positions in later games against stronger opponents. I guess I've read too many Bronstein and Shirov books...but I just couldn't resist the urge to sacrifice my queen for three pieces once in my life.
Rampley-Smith.pgn
I have to say, playing in this manner may not be solid but it is admired. I had several people (including my opponent) tell me that 'that's how chess ought to be played'. I assume they mean sharply, creatively...hopefully not dubiously. As neat as it may have been, it was still a dubious continuation and I'd have had a better chance of winning if I'd played more simply. While flights of fancy aren't bad, they should be at least not worse than other continuations; a discipline I wasn't able to enforce upon myself, as you'll see as you look through the other games.
The third round was an English that I couldn't resist spicing up, much to my dismay. Again, I chose complications over what I knew to be the best continuation. I was again lucky to draw, based upon the poor endgame play of my opponent.
De Luca-Rampley.pgn
The fourth round was the worst for me, being my only loss. I came in ready to kick some ass, expecting a white. Instead, I was given my third black out of 4 games. My parents were coming in to town that afternoon, and I had actually hoped to play my white and then withdraw to meet them at the airport. After this game, I was unable to withdraw because I had to get some self respect back.
A short digression...I have to say I had about the toughest draw this tournament that I've ever had. Here were my pairings (with color and opponent's rating)
Round 1 Black vs 1960
Round 2 White vs 1812
Round 3 Black vs 1940
Round 4 Black vs 1975
Round 5 White vs 1870
My only 'easy' game in the 2nd round he played an opening which I had just started working on a new system against. I do feel like I was a bit unlucky. For what it's worth I had the highest tiebreak score (due to average opponent rating and performance) or any player other than the winner. Enough whining, here's the fourth round game: a flight of fancy by my opponent this time catches me unaware and I go down in flames.
McLean-Rampley.pgn
Couldn't save that one in the ending, as it never got there. Needless to say I was frothing at the mouth for my fourth round game. First however, I had to go through a little bout of self hatred and an attempted withdrawal before manning up and driving back to the tournament site to play the last round. The last round was much like the 2nd...I chose complications over a slightly better position. After dominating the opening, I felt an obligation to try and keep the initiative by entering a crazy line that I was pretty sure was dubious. Why did I play it anyway? Who knows. This is the big takeaway for me from this tournament: if you know (or even suspect) a move is bad, don't play it, regardless of how beautiful the conception is. Throwing away a better or equal position isn't beautiful, ti's stupid. It's not going to look like a stroke of genius when you lose...you just blundered. A valuable lesson, especially since I'll probably play down some at the US Open and really shouldn't take chances in games that I'll almost certainly be able to win from a better endgame position. Here's the game.
Tucen-Rampley.pgn
So that was my tournament. Good as a tune up, horrible as a competitive outing. I'm glad I played, but hopefully I won't have to repeat the same psychological mistakes again. Knowing one's own self destructive tendencies is the first step to correcting them. In the future I know to ask myself upon considering a crazy move: 'are you considering this because it's the best solution in the position, or just because it's crazy? Is it even playable, or are you about to do something dubious because it has a veneer of creativity?' If I can do that, I think I'll add some stability to my play and justify my ~1900 rating. As a post script, my tournament performance was about 1860, which I suppose I should take heart in since I was around 1700 in January. I've come a long way. See you at the US Open.
I really shouldn't be so hard on myself, I suppose. In some senses I performed well: I overcame one of my worst habits, namely giving up (or at least becoming extremely pessimistic) upon realizing that I was worse. In this tournament, each time I recognized that I was worse I pulled myself together and resolved to hold the ending. In each case, I was able to do so, though not without considerable help from my opponents. The one game I lost I lost due to tactical oversight, certainly not from giving up.
It is interesting how even players of ~1900 not only seemed to play the ending very badly, but almost seemed to stop trying when they reached winning positions. It's as if the prospect of playing out a better ending was enough to sap their energy and resolve. I don't know why they expected the win to just happen, but that seemed to be a consistent mindset of my opponents throughout the tournament. Here's an example. I was so lost in the first round that at least three times I resolved to resign if my opponent played the best move. These were not terribly hard moves to find, mind you. Each time however, he let me off the hook. See for yourself.
Machado-Rampley.pgn
Not an auspicious start, but at least I hadn't given up when faced with a difficult (in this case truly hopeless) defense. Garrett once told me I needed to become an 'old school scrapper from way back', and while he was half joking he was still completely right. The more I've come to see chess as a battle (as opposed to a display of skills and knowledge developed away from competition) the more successful I've been. The better I get, the more the psychological aspects matter. Toughness, resolve, these qualities can't be overestimated.
The second round was unlike the first in pretty much every way, apart from my playing badly in the opening. This was the first time I'd trotted out the Russian variation in response to the Grunfeld, and I knew there was a very real possibility that I wouldn't be prepared from a theoretical standpoint having only studied the most critical lines. My opponent in fact deviated early, but I didn't handle it correctly. What followed after was a mistake that indicative of my whole tournament, as well as all my chess as of late.: a tendency to enter complex positions merely for the sake of complexity, even when I had better 'solid' options available. I too often sacrificed a win in hopes of creating a brilliancy. While I got away with it here, mostly because I was white, it led to some really bad positions in later games against stronger opponents. I guess I've read too many Bronstein and Shirov books...but I just couldn't resist the urge to sacrifice my queen for three pieces once in my life.
Rampley-Smith.pgn
I have to say, playing in this manner may not be solid but it is admired. I had several people (including my opponent) tell me that 'that's how chess ought to be played'. I assume they mean sharply, creatively...hopefully not dubiously. As neat as it may have been, it was still a dubious continuation and I'd have had a better chance of winning if I'd played more simply. While flights of fancy aren't bad, they should be at least not worse than other continuations; a discipline I wasn't able to enforce upon myself, as you'll see as you look through the other games.
The third round was an English that I couldn't resist spicing up, much to my dismay. Again, I chose complications over what I knew to be the best continuation. I was again lucky to draw, based upon the poor endgame play of my opponent.
De Luca-Rampley.pgn
The fourth round was the worst for me, being my only loss. I came in ready to kick some ass, expecting a white. Instead, I was given my third black out of 4 games. My parents were coming in to town that afternoon, and I had actually hoped to play my white and then withdraw to meet them at the airport. After this game, I was unable to withdraw because I had to get some self respect back.
A short digression...I have to say I had about the toughest draw this tournament that I've ever had. Here were my pairings (with color and opponent's rating)
Round 1 Black vs 1960
Round 2 White vs 1812
Round 3 Black vs 1940
Round 4 Black vs 1975
Round 5 White vs 1870
My only 'easy' game in the 2nd round he played an opening which I had just started working on a new system against. I do feel like I was a bit unlucky. For what it's worth I had the highest tiebreak score (due to average opponent rating and performance) or any player other than the winner. Enough whining, here's the fourth round game: a flight of fancy by my opponent this time catches me unaware and I go down in flames.
McLean-Rampley.pgn
Couldn't save that one in the ending, as it never got there. Needless to say I was frothing at the mouth for my fourth round game. First however, I had to go through a little bout of self hatred and an attempted withdrawal before manning up and driving back to the tournament site to play the last round. The last round was much like the 2nd...I chose complications over a slightly better position. After dominating the opening, I felt an obligation to try and keep the initiative by entering a crazy line that I was pretty sure was dubious. Why did I play it anyway? Who knows. This is the big takeaway for me from this tournament: if you know (or even suspect) a move is bad, don't play it, regardless of how beautiful the conception is. Throwing away a better or equal position isn't beautiful, ti's stupid. It's not going to look like a stroke of genius when you lose...you just blundered. A valuable lesson, especially since I'll probably play down some at the US Open and really shouldn't take chances in games that I'll almost certainly be able to win from a better endgame position. Here's the game.
Tucen-Rampley.pgn
So that was my tournament. Good as a tune up, horrible as a competitive outing. I'm glad I played, but hopefully I won't have to repeat the same psychological mistakes again. Knowing one's own self destructive tendencies is the first step to correcting them. In the future I know to ask myself upon considering a crazy move: 'are you considering this because it's the best solution in the position, or just because it's crazy? Is it even playable, or are you about to do something dubious because it has a veneer of creativity?' If I can do that, I think I'll add some stability to my play and justify my ~1900 rating. As a post script, my tournament performance was about 1860, which I suppose I should take heart in since I was around 1700 in January. I've come a long way. See you at the US Open.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Notes from the hospital...
They've switched me to oral narcotics from intravenous. That's good as a sign of progress, but they're much less effective and I'm in a bit of pain right now. To get my mind off of it and to fight creeping hospital boredom, I've decided to post some old games of mine. If you follow this blog you might notice some differences in the annotation style, mostly that I knew a lot less about chess than I do now. It's funny to play through some of these games now because I was such a patzer when I first annotated them, and my standards were so much lower. I may not be a lot better now, but at least now I know how little I know.
This is a game from the Indiana Class Champs in 2007. I had just gotten back from Napa Valley where my fiancee (now wife) and I were vacationing, so I was jet lagged, hung over, and in bad shape to play chess in general. I lost my first two games and I was in a very violent mood. This game is the result of that mood.
1700-Rampley.pgn
I must admit I changed some of the annotations, primarily removing off color language and some of the comments that were a little too over the top. Even though this game isn't perfect by any means, I still enjoy looking over it because it was cute attacking effort.
My recovery is going well, and soon I hope to be out and playing serious chess again. I am healing very well so this is a realistic goal. I also need to get a job, so if you have any friends in banking in southern Florida in need of analysts or project managers, let me know.
This is a game from the Indiana Class Champs in 2007. I had just gotten back from Napa Valley where my fiancee (now wife) and I were vacationing, so I was jet lagged, hung over, and in bad shape to play chess in general. I lost my first two games and I was in a very violent mood. This game is the result of that mood.
1700-Rampley.pgn
I must admit I changed some of the annotations, primarily removing off color language and some of the comments that were a little too over the top. Even though this game isn't perfect by any means, I still enjoy looking over it because it was cute attacking effort.
My recovery is going well, and soon I hope to be out and playing serious chess again. I am healing very well so this is a realistic goal. I also need to get a job, so if you have any friends in banking in southern Florida in need of analysts or project managers, let me know.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Last game for a while...
Official game, at least. I may post some ICC games if I play any worth showing. This is the game that put me over 1800. Also another successful outing for the Krasenkow variation (sort of, technically it was an Old Indian not a KID, but very similar play and themes), which I've just picked up. My opponent was game, but he missed the strong 23. Qg5 and after that he was in trouble. This game was also notable for me because I spent about 30 minutes on one move (26. Qf6), which is by far the longest I've ever taken on a single move. It felt great when I got home and Fritzed it and the computer confirmed my OTB analysis. I spent most of the game way up on time, but by the end we were both low and scrambling a bit. Here it is:
Rampley-1615.pgn
So this is probably my last post for a while, at least about chess. My family arrives tomorrow, I have pre-surgical consultations Thursday, and then Friday's the big day. I have to be there at 5:30 a.m, but at least I'm the first one of the day. Shouldn't be any delays.
Hopefully by early next week I'll be eating again. The hospital's very boring, so I may post something in a Demerol haze just for kicks. As I often tell people (truthfully) on ICC, don't judge me; I'm wasted.
Rampley-1615.pgn
So this is probably my last post for a while, at least about chess. My family arrives tomorrow, I have pre-surgical consultations Thursday, and then Friday's the big day. I have to be there at 5:30 a.m, but at least I'm the first one of the day. Shouldn't be any delays.
Hopefully by early next week I'll be eating again. The hospital's very boring, so I may post something in a Demerol haze just for kicks. As I often tell people (truthfully) on ICC, don't judge me; I'm wasted.
Friday, January 23, 2009
What do you know? I won again...
...against another 'A' player. I was told that both the one I beat tonight and the one I beat Wednesday are both just returning to chess, but I really don't care too much. There are always mitigating circumstances for a loss, right? I'm pretty sure it was Tal who said 'I've never beaten a healthy opponent'.
In any case, after three rounds I'm +3=0-0 in the BRCC tournament. Pretty good stuff so far. This game I played tonight may be the best one I've ever played, and it almost didn't happen. When the King's Indian came onto the board, I couldn't decide if I should play the Bayonet, which I've played unsuccesfully for a while but know pretty well, or the Krasenkow variation, which I've been studying and want to pick up but have never played. I went with the Krasenkow, and it was a beautiful game. Here it is.
Rampley-1856.pgn
So there it is. I feel like I'm playing the best chess of my life here in South Florida. The two long games a week are just the right amount, much better for development than 5 games in a weekend tournament. Being unemployed and studying a lot help too.
Just for a bonus, and because he asked me to post it, here's a game I played at the SFCC a few weeks ago against a dangerous 'C' player. I was lucky to draw this one.
1551-Rampley.pgn
So that one wasn't so great for, but at least I didn't lose it. Keep your eyes on Corus. The games in the lower groups are often more fun to watch than 2700+ guys drawing each other.
In any case, after three rounds I'm +3=0-0 in the BRCC tournament. Pretty good stuff so far. This game I played tonight may be the best one I've ever played, and it almost didn't happen. When the King's Indian came onto the board, I couldn't decide if I should play the Bayonet, which I've played unsuccesfully for a while but know pretty well, or the Krasenkow variation, which I've been studying and want to pick up but have never played. I went with the Krasenkow, and it was a beautiful game. Here it is.
Rampley-1856.pgn
So there it is. I feel like I'm playing the best chess of my life here in South Florida. The two long games a week are just the right amount, much better for development than 5 games in a weekend tournament. Being unemployed and studying a lot help too.
Just for a bonus, and because he asked me to post it, here's a game I played at the SFCC a few weeks ago against a dangerous 'C' player. I was lucky to draw this one.
1551-Rampley.pgn
So that one wasn't so great for, but at least I didn't lose it. Keep your eyes on Corus. The games in the lower groups are often more fun to watch than 2700+ guys drawing each other.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Pain and Suffering at the Ohio Chess Congress
So the Ohio Chess Congress is finished. It still remains one of my favorite tournaments for its unique 3 day, 2 game a day format (it's always over Labor Day weekend). A lot of chess, but high quality.
This year, my section was 1700-2000. I played 4 players above 1900. In those games, I scored +0 =1 -3. It was brutal. I learned a very valuable lesson, though. If you don't check for tactics on every move, you'll probably lose. It's funny how such a seemingly obvious thing can escape your notice when you play 'B' and 'C' players, because they don't punish you. 'A' players punish you brutally. Each of the 3 games I lost I lost because of simple tactical oversights (well, one I got completely outplayed and was losing in any case). My only goal before the next tournament (IN state champs) is to realign my move selection thought process to constantly be wary of tactics. I think if I do that, I'll be okay.
Garrett made an interesting observation about my play, namely that I've learned chess in the reverse order from most players. I study a lot, but I've only played really serious (i.e. classical time control) tournaments for about a year, with some rapid play before that. I know a lot about openings, middle game structures, theoretical endings, etc, but I have very little actual playing experience. How many 'B' players do you think have studied 10x as much as they've played? My ratio is probably a lot higher than that, actually, because I am pretty studious. Garrett and Ben assured me that once my playing experience catches up that I'll probably get a quick ratings boost, and I can't wait for it to happen. Right now, I'm just trying to play better chess rather than worrying about increasing my knowledge base. Thought process dominates knowledge OTB, and that's where I'm focusing my efforts. In any case, here are all my games from the tournament save the last round, which I haven't analyzed yet (it was a pretty brutal and uninteresting loss anyway).
Round 1
Rampley-Morris.pgn
First round draws with 'A' players don't bother me too much, though I feel if I'd played more energetically I might have had winning chances. This proved to be the highlight of my tourney against 1900+ players.
Round 2
Porter-Rampley.pgn
This game sucked. So drawn. This one hurt me badly psychologically.
Round 3
Rampley-Kulkarni.pgn
I cannot believe I got a draw out of this one. Barely avoided ridicule for losing to a 16 year old girl. I deserved to lose.
Round 4
Wie-Rampley.pgn
My one success. I have to say, I was very pleased with how I played this game. Good energy, no dogmatism. I think I would have won even if he hadn't blundered.
Round 5
Rampley-Wolrath.pgn
I got outplayed every way you could get outplayed in this one. I won't add anything to the copious game notes, but suffice it to say that I'll be ready if I get this variation again.
The last round was another ignominious miniature defeat against a 1900+ player in an irregular Tromp type opening. I didn't have any gumption left after the Wolrath game. Bad chess, good lesson in both humility and the need to consider my opponent's checks, captures, and threats (thanks Dan Heisman) every move. By the way, if you've never read Novice Nook at Chesscafe.com, then do it right now. It's not really just for novices. All players should look at it, because Heisman is unparalleled at revealing useful information on practical play. Next tournament is the IN State Champs. I'll be happily married by then, which is a crazy thing. That tournament will hopefully also be the triumphant (unless he plays me) return of Nate to the Midwest Chess scene. Hopefully I can bounce back and win some good games. In other news, getting married on the 26th in San Diego, got a 730 on the GMAT (class average at Harvard Business School last year: 707), and having my large intestine taken out in Cleveland on October 29th. It's a busy fall.
This year, my section was 1700-2000. I played 4 players above 1900. In those games, I scored +0 =1 -3. It was brutal. I learned a very valuable lesson, though. If you don't check for tactics on every move, you'll probably lose. It's funny how such a seemingly obvious thing can escape your notice when you play 'B' and 'C' players, because they don't punish you. 'A' players punish you brutally. Each of the 3 games I lost I lost because of simple tactical oversights (well, one I got completely outplayed and was losing in any case). My only goal before the next tournament (IN state champs) is to realign my move selection thought process to constantly be wary of tactics. I think if I do that, I'll be okay.
Garrett made an interesting observation about my play, namely that I've learned chess in the reverse order from most players. I study a lot, but I've only played really serious (i.e. classical time control) tournaments for about a year, with some rapid play before that. I know a lot about openings, middle game structures, theoretical endings, etc, but I have very little actual playing experience. How many 'B' players do you think have studied 10x as much as they've played? My ratio is probably a lot higher than that, actually, because I am pretty studious. Garrett and Ben assured me that once my playing experience catches up that I'll probably get a quick ratings boost, and I can't wait for it to happen. Right now, I'm just trying to play better chess rather than worrying about increasing my knowledge base. Thought process dominates knowledge OTB, and that's where I'm focusing my efforts. In any case, here are all my games from the tournament save the last round, which I haven't analyzed yet (it was a pretty brutal and uninteresting loss anyway).
Round 1
Rampley-Morris.pgn
First round draws with 'A' players don't bother me too much, though I feel if I'd played more energetically I might have had winning chances. This proved to be the highlight of my tourney against 1900+ players.
Round 2
Porter-Rampley.pgn
This game sucked. So drawn. This one hurt me badly psychologically.
Round 3
Rampley-Kulkarni.pgn
I cannot believe I got a draw out of this one. Barely avoided ridicule for losing to a 16 year old girl. I deserved to lose.
Round 4
Wie-Rampley.pgn
My one success. I have to say, I was very pleased with how I played this game. Good energy, no dogmatism. I think I would have won even if he hadn't blundered.
Round 5
Rampley-Wolrath.pgn
I got outplayed every way you could get outplayed in this one. I won't add anything to the copious game notes, but suffice it to say that I'll be ready if I get this variation again.
The last round was another ignominious miniature defeat against a 1900+ player in an irregular Tromp type opening. I didn't have any gumption left after the Wolrath game. Bad chess, good lesson in both humility and the need to consider my opponent's checks, captures, and threats (thanks Dan Heisman) every move. By the way, if you've never read Novice Nook at Chesscafe.com, then do it right now. It's not really just for novices. All players should look at it, because Heisman is unparalleled at revealing useful information on practical play. Next tournament is the IN State Champs. I'll be happily married by then, which is a crazy thing. That tournament will hopefully also be the triumphant (unless he plays me) return of Nate to the Midwest Chess scene. Hopefully I can bounce back and win some good games. In other news, getting married on the 26th in San Diego, got a 730 on the GMAT (class average at Harvard Business School last year: 707), and having my large intestine taken out in Cleveland on October 29th. It's a busy fall.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Adventures in Chess
Welcome to Chessgasm, this blog will be devoted to my obsession with chess. Nothing has the power to elate and infuriate me like chess; I'm sure you can sympathize. The title of this blog is indicative of the emotional power chess has, though nothing the least bit racy will ever be posted (not even 'Chessbase' girls). In any case, this blog will contain my observations, trials, and tribulations as I try to reach expert before I get bored and quit. I intend to review books (I buy a lot of chess books), discuss my games (hopefully get comments from well meaning readers), and discuss the frustrations and joys of being a class player in the USCF.
Perhaps you noticed I said expert. Unlike many chess players, I don't really expect to be a master. I think I can reach expert within 5 years, which is about how long I expect to be really interested in chess (I tend to get bored with things after 5-6 years, I've found). Chess may prove an exception however... I can't ever get enough, especially ICC.
I don't have a system for improving. I study often, mostly analyzing early middlegame positions from openings I play. I used to do a lot of tactics, but once I got to about 1600 I found that they didn't really seem to help so much as they used to. I think studying openings is not as overrated as everyone says, and since everyone good spends a lot of time on it they should stop telling everyone below them to give it up. How else am I supposed to learn about positions? Positions come from specific openings, and usually the positional (and even tactical) motifs that recur repeatedly in games in those openings are defined very early by the initial moves each player makes. For example, you could say that the King's Indian defense is a terribly complicated and theoretical opening that class players shouldn't spend a lot of time learning the theory of. However, if I want to play the KID, I better learn that black usually strives for an f5 break, while white will often play for c5 and invasion on the open c-file. I should know that if white plays an early f3 and goes into the Samisch, then he may castle queenside and attack on the kingside and that my best response may well be a gambit. I should know that in some positions Na6 planning to come to c5 after a d5 push is a good way of playing. I should know that against some setups going into a Benoni type position with c5 may be best. These are all opening concepts which will define the strategies of both sides for the middlegame, and studying openings seems to the best way to learn about them. Whew. There's my rant for the day.
Perhaps you noticed I said expert. Unlike many chess players, I don't really expect to be a master. I think I can reach expert within 5 years, which is about how long I expect to be really interested in chess (I tend to get bored with things after 5-6 years, I've found). Chess may prove an exception however... I can't ever get enough, especially ICC.
I don't have a system for improving. I study often, mostly analyzing early middlegame positions from openings I play. I used to do a lot of tactics, but once I got to about 1600 I found that they didn't really seem to help so much as they used to. I think studying openings is not as overrated as everyone says, and since everyone good spends a lot of time on it they should stop telling everyone below them to give it up. How else am I supposed to learn about positions? Positions come from specific openings, and usually the positional (and even tactical) motifs that recur repeatedly in games in those openings are defined very early by the initial moves each player makes. For example, you could say that the King's Indian defense is a terribly complicated and theoretical opening that class players shouldn't spend a lot of time learning the theory of. However, if I want to play the KID, I better learn that black usually strives for an f5 break, while white will often play for c5 and invasion on the open c-file. I should know that if white plays an early f3 and goes into the Samisch, then he may castle queenside and attack on the kingside and that my best response may well be a gambit. I should know that in some positions Na6 planning to come to c5 after a d5 push is a good way of playing. I should know that against some setups going into a Benoni type position with c5 may be best. These are all opening concepts which will define the strategies of both sides for the middlegame, and studying openings seems to the best way to learn about them. Whew. There's my rant for the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
