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 Nimzo-Indian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nimzo-Indian. Show all posts
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Reign of Inconsistency
The story of every class players life, right? You play a great game, then you blunder a piece on move 12. You concentrate hard and get an overwhelming position, then one careless move and you're drawing or worse, losing. I've been told I play at 21oo strength. If you looked at some games I've lost recently, you'd conclude I played at 1400 strength. Not surprisingly, my rating splits the difference.
I don't really know how to become more consistent. Practice, I guess. I notice that mood makes a big difference for me: if I don't feel much like playing, I may as well not because I'm probably going to blunder. If I could wave a magic wand and improve anything about my game, it would be consistency. Not least because it's the only part of my game I don't know how to fix through hard work.
As you're probably guessed, I have some up and down games to show. The first is a very nice effort against an expert (the first one I've beaten) played in Boca Raton. The game is an f3 Nimzo-Indian. It's funny that with since I moved up to the premiere division at Boca I've played 3 Nimzo-Indians out of 4 white games. I have always read that the higher your rating goes the more Nimzos you play, but it's funny to find it so true. It seems that after about 1800 there's a big move away from the QGD and the King's Indian to Nimzo/Queen's Indian and Slav systems. While that's not so surprising given the greater complexity involved in playing the latter systems, it's also enjoyable to start seeing a broader range of defenses. It certainly validates all the time I put in studying them when I was ~1600. In any case, here's the game:
Rampley-Wang.pgn
Not a perfect game, but I saw a lot and played with energy. I was very happy after this one. Not so much the next game. In this one my opponent also played the opening passively, but I got way too eager to punish him and over-reached. I blame studying tactics. I've spent so much time lately on tactical puzzles that I've started seeing almost every position as a tactical puzzle. While this might help me find some resources that I'd otherwise miss, it also makes it hard to step back and look at the larger picture. Sometimes you have to play with restraint. In this game I saw what looked like a good sac (it wasn't) and once I realized it wasn't good the only option I saw was to sacrifice more material (also incorrectly). When I analyzed the game, I found that a quieter continuation leading to space gains would have given me an overwhelming advantage. I didn't even look at it.
To my opponent's credit, I didn't just lose because I played badly. I set him some hard problems, and he found excellent solutions to all of them. I thought he played extremely well after the opening. Take a look:
Rampley-Yin,E.pgn
That one really hurt. I also blundered a game in Margate last week that I'm not going to show here, because I literally lost a piece to a one move tactic around move 20 (and to a guy I don't like too, which made it even worse).
Moving to study, I'm finding it harder to study openings. They simply aren't as interesting as they used to be. I suppose that's not such a big deal since my opening repertoire is already much better than most players at my rating, but it's odd since the opening has traditionally been my favorite thing to work on. I don't have an explanation, though the pleasure I'm getting studying advanced tactics and endings may have something to do with it. Or it might just be a case of diminishing returns. I mention this because I've been toying with the notion of playing some 1.e4 again, though to do so means a lot of opening work. I'd just rather keep working my way through Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Forcing Chess Moves. It'll be interesting to see what helps my game more. I certainly do get some significant advantages in the opening. I hope I don't lose that during the process of improving other parts of my game.
One last note: I will be at the US Open in August. 6 day schedule. I'm super pumped. If anyone reading this is going to be there, leave me a comment and we can play some blitz. Peace out.
I don't really know how to become more consistent. Practice, I guess. I notice that mood makes a big difference for me: if I don't feel much like playing, I may as well not because I'm probably going to blunder. If I could wave a magic wand and improve anything about my game, it would be consistency. Not least because it's the only part of my game I don't know how to fix through hard work.
As you're probably guessed, I have some up and down games to show. The first is a very nice effort against an expert (the first one I've beaten) played in Boca Raton. The game is an f3 Nimzo-Indian. It's funny that with since I moved up to the premiere division at Boca I've played 3 Nimzo-Indians out of 4 white games. I have always read that the higher your rating goes the more Nimzos you play, but it's funny to find it so true. It seems that after about 1800 there's a big move away from the QGD and the King's Indian to Nimzo/Queen's Indian and Slav systems. While that's not so surprising given the greater complexity involved in playing the latter systems, it's also enjoyable to start seeing a broader range of defenses. It certainly validates all the time I put in studying them when I was ~1600. In any case, here's the game:
Rampley-Wang.pgn
Not a perfect game, but I saw a lot and played with energy. I was very happy after this one. Not so much the next game. In this one my opponent also played the opening passively, but I got way too eager to punish him and over-reached. I blame studying tactics. I've spent so much time lately on tactical puzzles that I've started seeing almost every position as a tactical puzzle. While this might help me find some resources that I'd otherwise miss, it also makes it hard to step back and look at the larger picture. Sometimes you have to play with restraint. In this game I saw what looked like a good sac (it wasn't) and once I realized it wasn't good the only option I saw was to sacrifice more material (also incorrectly). When I analyzed the game, I found that a quieter continuation leading to space gains would have given me an overwhelming advantage. I didn't even look at it.
To my opponent's credit, I didn't just lose because I played badly. I set him some hard problems, and he found excellent solutions to all of them. I thought he played extremely well after the opening. Take a look:
Rampley-Yin,E.pgn
That one really hurt. I also blundered a game in Margate last week that I'm not going to show here, because I literally lost a piece to a one move tactic around move 20 (and to a guy I don't like too, which made it even worse).
Moving to study, I'm finding it harder to study openings. They simply aren't as interesting as they used to be. I suppose that's not such a big deal since my opening repertoire is already much better than most players at my rating, but it's odd since the opening has traditionally been my favorite thing to work on. I don't have an explanation, though the pleasure I'm getting studying advanced tactics and endings may have something to do with it. Or it might just be a case of diminishing returns. I mention this because I've been toying with the notion of playing some 1.e4 again, though to do so means a lot of opening work. I'd just rather keep working my way through Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Forcing Chess Moves. It'll be interesting to see what helps my game more. I certainly do get some significant advantages in the opening. I hope I don't lose that during the process of improving other parts of my game.
One last note: I will be at the US Open in August. 6 day schedule. I'm super pumped. If anyone reading this is going to be there, leave me a comment and we can play some blitz. Peace out.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Two Game and Some Book Reviews
Two games in this one, both white piece draws against higher rated players. The first was played a few Fridays back in Boca Raton. My opponent was a young, strong expert. After a theoretical opening, I got a huge advantage that I subsequently pissed away via a series of slight (and not so slight if I'm being honest) inaccuracies. The opening was an f3 Nimzo, which I have studied but not had many opportunities to play OTB. Not so many 1800s seem to play the Nimzo, probably because of the wealth of options white has against it. Also, you have to learn either the QGD or QID as well, and since so many people start out playing the QGD they probably don't bother to learn the Nimzo despite its excellent reputation.
I have vacillated a bit about what to play against the Nimzo. The f3 variation has been a favorite of mine after examining several games in which Shirov rolled some super GMs, but I have dabbled in the Qc2 and Rubinstein as well. The biggest issue for white is that black can often seize the initiative, and while white may have more space black is often calling the shots, while white is primarily reacting. Like all broad statements in chess you can certainly find many examples in Nimzo-Indian praxis that indicate otherwise, but overall my opinion is that black has the initiative. Believing that to be the case, I've settled on a variation where white at least gets a pawn for his trouble, even if it's hard to hold. In addition, the open position favors his bishop pair unlike in the Rubinstein, where the center can often be semi-closed. The fact that Anand played it against Kramnik only boslters my belief that there's something there for white, even if it's hard to prove. This game is a good example of what white gets if black doesn't play with great activity, though I did screw up the ending horribly to let him off with a draw.
Rampley-Goss.pgn
So the ending is an embarassement, but you must admit that white's domination in the middlegame was absolute.
The other game I have is from last night (Wednesday), played in the final round in Margate. It had been a bad day. I was trying unsuccessfully to do last minute taxes, and since everyone else in the US was too the site was running very slowly. I spent 8 hours on it, getting kicked off the disconnected, waiting for the site to process forms, etc, all the while playing really bad ICC chess duing the load times. I was in a shitty mood when I got to the club. So of course I had to play a Benko.
I hate playing against the Benko gambit. My results aren't horrible and I feel that I understand white's aims in the opening more than in many others I play, but white's strategy is very hard for me to stomach. Take your pawn, hold for 25 or 30 moves until black's activity is gone, and then hopefully win in the ending. I've done it successfully several times, but it requires a lot of patience and vigilance which I didn't have last night. I ended up fudging the move order and allowing a knight into c4, after which point only an endgame blunder by my opponent allowed me to draw. It was dispiriting to say the least.
It is funny how critical one piece on the right square can be. The system I play, the Fianchetto Benko, is designed to do one thing and that is prevent a knight from getting to c4. I had never allowed it to happen before, and I will never let it happen again after last night. God, that sucked. You can see for yourself.
Rampley-Sinanman.pgn
Terrible. I was not pleased with this game at all. I was lucky to draw.
And now, a book review or two.
Winning Chess Middlegames, Ivan Sokolov
Great book, if you play d4 or c4. Not so much if you play e4. This book is similar to Soltis's classic 'Pawn Structure Chess', with an emphasis on pawn structures arising from more modern variations, primarily in from the Nimzo-Indian and English openings. Sokolov's annotations are excellent and at times dry and witty as he questions whether or not certain moves or variations are as good as their reputations. The book functions well as a games collection too, with many coming from Sokolov's own praxis (wins and losses). The author's tone is not removed and pedagogical, but very engaging. As you might expect, Sokolov's own games are discussed with added verve. By the way, for those who don't know, Sokolov was one of the best players (consistent top 10) of the 90s, so when he chooses to write a book it's worth getting.
Fighting the Anti-Sicilians and The Bb5 Sicilian, byRichard Palliser
Recently got these two because I wasn't happy with my anti-Sicilian repertoire. For those who don't know, anti-Sicilians are any but open Sicilians. I was unhappy with the repertoire I built using Rogozenko's book on the subject because I always seemed to end up passive (though equal, in deference to Rogozenko). Since I hate playing without the initiative, I wanted a more active approach and so I checked these two volumes out. The two books are very different, but I have found both useful.
FtAS is organized in a tree of variations format, which I usually don't care for but in this case appreciate because there are many variations to cover. The lines are active and fighting, though as such I feel that black takes a little more risk than he otherwise might. d5 against the Alapin with Nc6 and Bg4 to follow is one example. The Nf6 lines are dull IMO, but safer. Another example is Palliser's choice of Nf6 against the Closed rather than Nge7. I will probably try it out, but as I usually end up playing a pseudo-Swedish English against the Closed anyway I don't know if it will make it into my permanent repertoire. Palliser's style is easy and clear, and the book reads well despite its variation tree format.
tBb5S is organized by complete games which I prefer, though the best setup is the Hybrid system with games and an MCO like table ala the incomparable Mihail Marin in 'Beat the Open Games'. In any case, the games are modern and topical and the coverage seems thorough. If you have little experience in anti-Siclians, then these are both good books to start with as I feel they're more accessible and promote more active systems than Rogozenko's classic.
I'll try not to go so long without a blog posting in the future. Still no job, due to recession. Peace.
I have vacillated a bit about what to play against the Nimzo. The f3 variation has been a favorite of mine after examining several games in which Shirov rolled some super GMs, but I have dabbled in the Qc2 and Rubinstein as well. The biggest issue for white is that black can often seize the initiative, and while white may have more space black is often calling the shots, while white is primarily reacting. Like all broad statements in chess you can certainly find many examples in Nimzo-Indian praxis that indicate otherwise, but overall my opinion is that black has the initiative. Believing that to be the case, I've settled on a variation where white at least gets a pawn for his trouble, even if it's hard to hold. In addition, the open position favors his bishop pair unlike in the Rubinstein, where the center can often be semi-closed. The fact that Anand played it against Kramnik only boslters my belief that there's something there for white, even if it's hard to prove. This game is a good example of what white gets if black doesn't play with great activity, though I did screw up the ending horribly to let him off with a draw.
Rampley-Goss.pgn
So the ending is an embarassement, but you must admit that white's domination in the middlegame was absolute.
The other game I have is from last night (Wednesday), played in the final round in Margate. It had been a bad day. I was trying unsuccessfully to do last minute taxes, and since everyone else in the US was too the site was running very slowly. I spent 8 hours on it, getting kicked off the disconnected, waiting for the site to process forms, etc, all the while playing really bad ICC chess duing the load times. I was in a shitty mood when I got to the club. So of course I had to play a Benko.
I hate playing against the Benko gambit. My results aren't horrible and I feel that I understand white's aims in the opening more than in many others I play, but white's strategy is very hard for me to stomach. Take your pawn, hold for 25 or 30 moves until black's activity is gone, and then hopefully win in the ending. I've done it successfully several times, but it requires a lot of patience and vigilance which I didn't have last night. I ended up fudging the move order and allowing a knight into c4, after which point only an endgame blunder by my opponent allowed me to draw. It was dispiriting to say the least.
It is funny how critical one piece on the right square can be. The system I play, the Fianchetto Benko, is designed to do one thing and that is prevent a knight from getting to c4. I had never allowed it to happen before, and I will never let it happen again after last night. God, that sucked. You can see for yourself.
Rampley-Sinanman.pgn
Terrible. I was not pleased with this game at all. I was lucky to draw.
And now, a book review or two.
Winning Chess Middlegames, Ivan Sokolov
Great book, if you play d4 or c4. Not so much if you play e4. This book is similar to Soltis's classic 'Pawn Structure Chess', with an emphasis on pawn structures arising from more modern variations, primarily in from the Nimzo-Indian and English openings. Sokolov's annotations are excellent and at times dry and witty as he questions whether or not certain moves or variations are as good as their reputations. The book functions well as a games collection too, with many coming from Sokolov's own praxis (wins and losses). The author's tone is not removed and pedagogical, but very engaging. As you might expect, Sokolov's own games are discussed with added verve. By the way, for those who don't know, Sokolov was one of the best players (consistent top 10) of the 90s, so when he chooses to write a book it's worth getting.
Fighting the Anti-Sicilians and The Bb5 Sicilian, byRichard Palliser
Recently got these two because I wasn't happy with my anti-Sicilian repertoire. For those who don't know, anti-Sicilians are any but open Sicilians. I was unhappy with the repertoire I built using Rogozenko's book on the subject because I always seemed to end up passive (though equal, in deference to Rogozenko). Since I hate playing without the initiative, I wanted a more active approach and so I checked these two volumes out. The two books are very different, but I have found both useful.
FtAS is organized in a tree of variations format, which I usually don't care for but in this case appreciate because there are many variations to cover. The lines are active and fighting, though as such I feel that black takes a little more risk than he otherwise might. d5 against the Alapin with Nc6 and Bg4 to follow is one example. The Nf6 lines are dull IMO, but safer. Another example is Palliser's choice of Nf6 against the Closed rather than Nge7. I will probably try it out, but as I usually end up playing a pseudo-Swedish English against the Closed anyway I don't know if it will make it into my permanent repertoire. Palliser's style is easy and clear, and the book reads well despite its variation tree format.
tBb5S is organized by complete games which I prefer, though the best setup is the Hybrid system with games and an MCO like table ala the incomparable Mihail Marin in 'Beat the Open Games'. In any case, the games are modern and topical and the coverage seems thorough. If you have little experience in anti-Siclians, then these are both good books to start with as I feel they're more accessible and promote more active systems than Rogozenko's classic.
I'll try not to go so long without a blog posting in the future. Still no job, due to recession. Peace.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
A real win. Hurrah!
So I got paired with the highest rated player in the tournament (~1950). I have beaten this guy before, so I was actually looking forward to it. I had white, and I knew that this player's openings were very weak. This guy relies upon creativity to win, but I was fairly sure that I could get a position I was familiar with. Against d4, you're basically going to play some sort of d4-d5 opening, a dutch, or some variation of a fianchetto with delayed central breaks. I was perfectly happy to play any of those (no Latvian gambits against d4). He played an offbeat, extremely slow variation of the Slav which ended up looking a lot like a Cambridge Springs. Here's the game:
Rampley-Ibarra.pgn
I was very pleased with this game because I didn't make any careless moves. 100% safety checking, which I've often struggled with in the past. It's easy to get too caught up in one specific idea and look past your opponent's play, but in this game I didn't do that. In fact, I saw several strong ideas for him that he didn't even end up playing (such as ...g5, which would have been strong on several different moves).
I also think my opening study is really starting to bear fruit. Even when I don't get a variation I've specifically studied, I almost always end up in recognizable positions with clear strategic themes. In many cases these positions have recurring tactical ideas as well, so I find myself getting caught off guard by canned tactics very rarely. I think consistently getting familiar positions is a definitely a function of acquiring a critical mass of opening (and concurrently, early middlegame) knowledge. This game is a good example. Not a single move of his surprised me, because the ideas of this position are so consistent. After he played Bb4, I knew that Qa5 and Ne4 were coming, with the other knight coming to f6 via d7. It was totally thematic, and it was the only plan that made a lot of sense. I was also ready (from a strategic sense) if he played Be7 and dxc4, with a Caro/Slav type of position. Regardless of what anyone says, I'm really glad I studied all those openings.
Speaking of opening study, if you haven't ever read Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis, then by all means go buy it. I've found that book to be essential in my own career, one of the few that I keep going back to over and over. It's an older book, but I think Soltis's discussion of planning based upon pawn structure is the best treatment I've seen of that crucial subject. On a related note, I have just ordered Sokolov's Chess Middlegame Planning from Amazon. It's similar to Soltis's book, with an emphasis on newer 'standard' structures, in this case more dependent upon specific openings. It's a little more of a specialist volume, covering a variety of modern Nimzo-Indian and English typical pawn structures (though not only those, that just seems to be where the emphasis lies). I can't wait to get it. Some of the doubled c-pawn Czech Benoniesque closed centers you get out of the f3 and Rubinstein variations of the Nimzo are very hard to handle, and I am anxious to see what a player as strong as Ivan Sokolov has to say about them. I realize that's a very technical sentence above, so here's a game to illustrate what I'm talking about:
Navarra-Safarli.pgn
All annotations are mine, by the way. No plagiarism. Navarra handled that beautifully, but it didn't hurt that his opponent made some significant strategic mistakes (what the hell was ...a5 about?). Anyway, looking forward to that Sokolov book. I'll let you know if it's as cool as I'm hoping.
Rampley-Ibarra.pgn
I was very pleased with this game because I didn't make any careless moves. 100% safety checking, which I've often struggled with in the past. It's easy to get too caught up in one specific idea and look past your opponent's play, but in this game I didn't do that. In fact, I saw several strong ideas for him that he didn't even end up playing (such as ...g5, which would have been strong on several different moves).
I also think my opening study is really starting to bear fruit. Even when I don't get a variation I've specifically studied, I almost always end up in recognizable positions with clear strategic themes. In many cases these positions have recurring tactical ideas as well, so I find myself getting caught off guard by canned tactics very rarely. I think consistently getting familiar positions is a definitely a function of acquiring a critical mass of opening (and concurrently, early middlegame) knowledge. This game is a good example. Not a single move of his surprised me, because the ideas of this position are so consistent. After he played Bb4, I knew that Qa5 and Ne4 were coming, with the other knight coming to f6 via d7. It was totally thematic, and it was the only plan that made a lot of sense. I was also ready (from a strategic sense) if he played Be7 and dxc4, with a Caro/Slav type of position. Regardless of what anyone says, I'm really glad I studied all those openings.
Speaking of opening study, if you haven't ever read Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis, then by all means go buy it. I've found that book to be essential in my own career, one of the few that I keep going back to over and over. It's an older book, but I think Soltis's discussion of planning based upon pawn structure is the best treatment I've seen of that crucial subject. On a related note, I have just ordered Sokolov's Chess Middlegame Planning from Amazon. It's similar to Soltis's book, with an emphasis on newer 'standard' structures, in this case more dependent upon specific openings. It's a little more of a specialist volume, covering a variety of modern Nimzo-Indian and English typical pawn structures (though not only those, that just seems to be where the emphasis lies). I can't wait to get it. Some of the doubled c-pawn Czech Benoniesque closed centers you get out of the f3 and Rubinstein variations of the Nimzo are very hard to handle, and I am anxious to see what a player as strong as Ivan Sokolov has to say about them. I realize that's a very technical sentence above, so here's a game to illustrate what I'm talking about:
Navarra-Safarli.pgn
All annotations are mine, by the way. No plagiarism. Navarra handled that beautifully, but it didn't hurt that his opponent made some significant strategic mistakes (what the hell was ...a5 about?). Anyway, looking forward to that Sokolov book. I'll let you know if it's as cool as I'm hoping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
