Main
Date: 01 Feb 2005 09:20:53
From: Sky Walker
Subject: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
hello all,

I am posting 4 of my games here. None of the are of good quality as i am a
beginner player and is still learning this great game.

I would really appreciate it if some kind souls can spend some of their time
in looking at my games and tell me where i can improve. I am not really
talking about the tactical mistakes here, as i can get them with Junior 9 -
but about technique and style and main things i should focus on improving my
game as a whole. I am planning to play my first tourney next month.


So, on to the games:

here are my two losses as white, against chessmaster personalities:

Time Control: 30 mins per player.
Walker vs Jade(CMX personality - 2300+ rated )
( i know its a lame excuse, but i ran into time trouble on move 24, with 7
mins left, my opp has 16 :( )
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Be7 4.Bd3 O-O 5.O-O b6 6.Nbd2 d6 7.e4 Bb7 8.e5 Ne8
9.Ne4 d5 10.Neg5 g6 11.Nh3 Nc6 12.Bh6 Ng7 13.Nhg5 Na5 14.h4 Re8 15.h5 Nxh5
16.g3 a6 17.Kg2 Qd7 18.Rh1 Nc4 19.Rxh5 Nxb2 20.Qe2 c5 21.Rh2 c4 22.Nxh7 Kxh7
23.Bf8+ Kg8 24.Rah1 Bh4 25.Rxh4 Kxf8 26.Bxg6 Ke7 27.Bxf7 Rf8 28.Rh7 Rxf7
29.Rxf7+ Kxf7 30.Rh7+ Ke8 31.Rxd7 Kxd7 32.c3 Na4 33.Ng5 Re8 34.Qf3 Bc6
35.Nh7 Kc8 36.Qf7 Nxc3 37.Nf6 Rd8 38.Qa7 Na4 39.Qxa6+ Kb8 40.g4 Rc8 41.g5
Rc7 42.Kf1 c3 43.Ke2 c2 44.Kd2 c1=Q+ 0-1


Time Control: 45 mins per player.
Walker vs Rand(CMX personality - ~2100 rated (i think))
(no time trouble here - good old blunder by me in the end and desperation
later ;) )
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.O-O d6 6.d4 g4 7.Bxf4 gxf3 8.Qxf3
Bxd4+ 9.Kh1 Nf6 10.c3 Bg4 11.Qd3 Bc5 12.Bg5 Nbd7 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxf6 Nxf6
15.Qxd8+ Rxd8 16.Rxf6 Rd1+ 17.Rf1 c6 18.Bxf7+ Ke7 19.Rxd1 Bxd1 20.Nd2 Be2
21.Re1 Kxf7 22.Rxe2 Rd8 23.g3 Ke6 24.Ne4 Rd1+ 25.Kg2 Be7 26.Nf2 Rb1 27.Nd3
Bd6 28.Re4 Rd1 29.Re3 a5 30.Kf3 Rd2 31.h4 Kd5 32.c4+ Kxc4 33.b3+ Kd5 34.Kg4
Kd4 35.Rf3 Rxd3 36.Rf7 e4 37.Rxh7 Rxg3+ 0-1


here are my two wins as black, both against two human unrated opponents OTB:

Time Control: 45 mins per player.
N.N (unrated ) vs Walker
1. e3 e5 2. c3 d5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 Bd7 7. d4 e4 8.
Nfd2 Qg5 9. c4 Bxh3 10. g3 Bxg3 11. cxd5 Bh2+ 12. Kxh2 Qg2# 0-1

Time Control: 45 mins per player.
(i ran into time trouble here too, with around 5 mins left on move 25. i
spent 7 mins on 8th move :( )
N.N (unrated ) vs Walker
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Ne5 Nc6 6. cxd5 Nxe5 7. dxe6 Nc6
8. exf7+ Kxf7 9. Bc4+ Be6 10. Bxe6+ Kxe6 11. Qb3+ Qd5 12. Nc3 Qxb3 13. axb3
Bb4 14. O-O Kd7 15. Re1 Ne4 16. Ra4 Bxc3 17. bxc3 Nxc3 18. Rc4 Nb5 19. Bb2
Rhg8 20. Rec1 a6 21. d5 Ne7 22. e4 Rad8 23. Be5 Rc8 24. Bg3 c6 25. d6 Ng6
26. e5 Rce8 27. Re4 Re6 28. f4 Rf8 29. Rf1 Rf5 30. h3 Nc3 31. Rfe1 Nxe4 32.
Rxe4 Nh8 33. Rb4 Kc8 34. Bh4 Ng6 35. Rxb7 Kxb7 36. d7 Rf8 37. d8=Q Rxd8 38.
Bxd8 Nxf4 * 0-1

thanks for your time,
Walker






 
Date: 04 Feb 2005 13:20:15
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve

Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1
>
> is FEN notation .... nothing unknown here! (see previous posts)
>
> ... it mean:
>
> white:
> Kg1,Qf3,Ne4,Bb3,Bc1,Ra1,Re1,Pa2,b2,d6,f2,g2,h2
>
> Black:
> Kg8,Qd7,Nb6,Nf7,Bc8,Bg7,Ra8,Rf8,Pa7,b7,e7,g6,h7
>
> Hope that helps! :-)
>
> But FEN notation is an standard. I suggest you to seach in google for

> "FEN notation", for ex: http://loiodice.com/chess/cc-fen.sht
>
> Best regards
> Antonio T.

Hola Antonio,

Now you're talking.

Muchos gracias. I've heard about FEN and I don't like it because I
don't understand it. I'm not gonna learn it either. The short english
notation is just fine with me.

Saludos,

Lance



  
Date: 04 Feb 2005 15:07:16
From: Kitchen Man
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On 4 Feb 2005 13:20:15 -0800, "Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
>Muchos gracias. I've heard about FEN and I don't like it because I
>don't understand it. I'm not gonna learn it either. The short english
>notation is just fine with me.

Lance, you don't have to understand FEN to use it (kinda like not
needing to understand transmissions in order to drive your car). Your
computer chess program understands it. Copy the text, then use the
"paste position" option of your program to load it. Positions can also
be exported from chess programs to FEN text notation, and pasted here in
the newsgroup for others to analyze. If you use a chess program, you'll
probably learn to like it.

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker


   
Date: 04 Feb 2005 16:59:01
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
"Kitchen Man" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 4 Feb 2005 13:20:15 -0800, "Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

>>Lance, you don't have to understand FEN to use it (kinda like not
needing to understand transmissions in order to drive your car). Your
computer chess program understands it. Copy the text, then use the
"paste position" option of your program to load it. Positions can also
be exported from chess programs to FEN text notation, and pasted here in
the newsgroup for others to analyze. If you use a chess program, you'll
probably learn to like it.

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker<<

Al,

Thanks for the insight. However, in the real world, like in tournaments, nobody
uses FEN. I know that chess programs use it, but not a normal chessplayer.

Nope, not my cup of tea.

Lance





 
Date: 04 Feb 2005 07:31:28
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
> r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1
>
> In that position white has 5 minutes to write all He can see.
>
> "spoiler ... maybe some of you prefer to have a look at that position

> before continue reading"

If you can translate the above goobledygook position into a chess
notation, then perhaps some of us can have a look at it.



  
Date: 05 Feb 2005 02:38:20
From: Ed Seedhouse
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On 4 Feb 2005 07:31:28 -0800, "Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

>Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>>
>> r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1
>>
>> In that position white has 5 minutes to write all He can see.
>>
>> "spoiler ... maybe some of you prefer to have a look at that position
>
>> before continue reading"
>
>If you can translate the above goobledygook position into a chess
>notation, then perhaps some of us can have a look at it.

Your chess ingnorance is showing. That's a standard notation.

My copy of chessbase 8 translastes that code directly into a position
instantly. I could set up a board in two minutes from that notation
myself.


   
Date: 04 Feb 2005 21:15:33
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
"Ed Seedhouse" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 4 Feb 2005 07:31:28 -0800, "Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

>>Your chess ingnorance is showing. That's a standard notation.

My copy of chessbase 8 translastes that code directly into a position
instantly. I could set up a board in two minutes from that notation
myself.<<

Standard notation in an ASCII mode using a computer.
Who uses FEN in a tournament?





    
Date: 05 Feb 2005 14:05:24
From: Ed Seedhouse
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 21:15:33 -0600, "Liam Too" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>"Ed Seedhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>On 4 Feb 2005 07:31:28 -0800, "Liam Too" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Your chess ingnorance is showing. That's a standard notation.
>
>My copy of chessbase 8 translastes that code directly into a position
>instantly. I could set up a board in two minutes from that notation
>myself.<<
>
>Standard notation in an ASCII mode using a computer.
>Who uses FEN in a tournament?

It is an only slightly modified form of the "forsythe" notation that
has been used to record positions for over a hundred years. Who uses
FEN in a tournament? Anyone who needs to record a position and not a
full game. It is commonly used in the problem world. Not all chess
ia about tournaments.

Your comments in this thread suggest not merely ignorance, which is
curable, but willful ignorance, which is not.





     
Date: 06 Feb 2005 13:27:14
From: Kitchen Man
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:05:24 GMT, Ed Seedhouse <[email protected] >
wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 21:15:33 -0600, "Liam Too" <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>>Standard notation in an ASCII mode using a computer.
>>Who uses FEN in a tournament?
>
>It is an only slightly modified form of the "forsythe" notation that
>has been used to record positions for over a hundred years. Who uses
>FEN in a tournament? Anyone who needs to record a position and not a
>full game. It is commonly used in the problem world. Not all chess
>ia about tournaments.
>
>Your comments in this thread suggest not merely ignorance, which is
>curable, but willful ignorance, which is not.

People like what they like. To each his own, why get upset about it?

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker


     
Date: 05 Feb 2005 08:46:14
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
"Ed Seedhouse" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>It is an only slightly modified form of the "forsythe" notation that
has been used to record positions for over a hundred years. Who uses
FEN in a tournament? Anyone who needs to record a position and not a
full game. It is commonly used in the problem world. Not all chess
ia about tournaments.

Your comments in this thread suggest not merely ignorance, which is
curable, but willful ignorance, which is not.<<

LOL! Your arrogance is not curable though. It's synonymous to feigning
knowledge, but in reality NIL, or ZILCH.

Name a famous titled chessplayer who uses FEN in a tournament. If you can't,
then your stupidity outsignifies your arrogance.







      
Date: 06 Feb 2005 00:23:19
From: Ed Seedhouse
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 08:46:14 -0600, "Liam Too" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>"Ed Seedhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>It is an only slightly modified form of the "forsythe" notation that
>has been used to record positions for over a hundred years. Who uses
>FEN in a tournament? Anyone who needs to record a position and not a
>full game. It is commonly used in the problem world. Not all chess
>ia about tournaments.
>
>Your comments in this thread suggest not merely ignorance, which is
>curable, but willful ignorance, which is not.<<
>
>LOL! Your arrogance is not curable though. It's synonymous to feigning
>knowledge, but in reality NIL, or ZILCH.
>
>Name a famous titled chessplayer who uses FEN in a tournament. If you can't,
>then your stupidity outsignifies your arrogance.

Oh no, I'll just put you in my "twit" file so I never have to read
your stuff again. Have a nice life, on whatever planed you currently
inhabit.




      
Date: 05 Feb 2005 14:45:50
From: Greg Campbell
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
Liam Too wrote:

> Name a famous titled chessplayer who uses FEN in a tournament. If you can't,
> then your stupidity outsignifies your arrogance.


Talk about attitude....

FEN is not well suited for tournamet use. Writing out the entire board
each time you move a piece takes time and is hugely wasteful. DOH.

FEN IS very appropriate for describing a static position. Maybe there
is a REASON so many people use it, eh?

Also, I realy don't understand your difficulty. It shouldn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out how to interpret it....

-GRC



  
Date: 04 Feb 2005 14:32:45
From: Kitchen Man
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On 4 Feb 2005 07:31:28 -0800, "Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

>Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>>
>> r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1
>>
>> In that position white has 5 minutes to write all He can see.
>>
>> "spoiler ... maybe some of you prefer to have a look at that position
>
>> before continue reading"
>
>If you can translate the above goobledygook position into a chess
>notation, then perhaps some of us can have a look at it.

It's EPD (Extended Position Description), a valid notation. Copy it and
paste it into your favorite chess program, it will work.

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker


  
Date: 04 Feb 2005 22:02:38
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
En/na Liam Too ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
>>r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1
>>
>>In that position white has 5 minutes to write all He can see.
>>
>>"spoiler ... maybe some of you prefer to have a look at that position
>
>
>>before continue reading"
>
>
> If you can translate the above goobledygook position into a chess
> notation, then perhaps some of us can have a look at it.
>

Hello,

r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1

is FEN notation .... nothing unknown here! (see previous posts)

... it mean:

white:
Kg1,Qf3,Ne4,Bb3,Bc1,Ra1,Re1,Pa2,b2,d6,f2,g2,h2

Black:
Kg8,Qd7,Nb6,Nf7,Bc8,Bg7,Ra8,Rf8,Pa7,b7,e7,g6,h7

Hope that helps! :-)

But FEN notation is an standard. I suggest you to seach in google for
"FEN notation", for ex: http://loiodice.com/chess/cc-fen.sht

Best regards
Antonio T.



 
Date: 03 Feb 2005 14:51:10
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
"Kitchen Man" writes

> The first thing you're going to have to do is reevaluate what
> chessmaster claims its ratings are in these games. The second thing
> is to not listen to evil sarcastic people in newsgroups that claim
> you are a prodigy. You play well enough, but these games are not
> brilliancies, they are very average.

You have to put my comments back in context. He said he was a
"beginner." To me, a beginner is, well a beginner, someone who
has just recently learned the rules. His play demonstrated that he
knew the basic ideas behind at least a couple openings, that he could
play reasonable purposeful chess from move to move, and that he
had some tactical ability. Now if he had really learnt the moves say
just last week, then this would be very impressive indeed; far better
than any beginner I've ever encountered. I didn't mean to imply that
the games were the quality of say an International Master, they're not.
But neither are they the quality of beginner.

Cheers.



  
Date: 04 Feb 2005 14:43:25
From: Kitchen Man
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On 3 Feb 2005 14:51:10 -0800, "[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>"Kitchen Man" writes
>
>> The first thing you're going to have to do is reevaluate what
>> chessmaster claims its ratings are in these games. The second thing
>> is to not listen to evil sarcastic people in newsgroups that claim
>> you are a prodigy. You play well enough, but these games are not
>> brilliancies, they are very average.
>
>You have to put my comments back in context. He said he was a
>"beginner." To me, a beginner is, well a beginner, someone who
>has just recently learned the rules. His play demonstrated that he
>knew the basic ideas behind at least a couple openings, that he could
>play reasonable purposeful chess from move to move, and that he
>had some tactical ability. Now if he had really learnt the moves say
>just last week, then this would be very impressive indeed; far better
>than any beginner I've ever encountered. I didn't mean to imply that
>the games were the quality of say an International Master, they're not.
>But neither are they the quality of beginner.

I thought it prudent to point out that the Chessmaster program was
playing poorly, and not at expert level. Sammy Reshevsky was a prodigy.
I agree that his games are good, and that he learned well from Chernev's
work. Nevertheless, I don't think he was exaggerating when he said he
was a beginner, which is not to say that I think he wouldn't give me a
good game. I've had many beginners give me a good game.

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker


 
Date: 01 Feb 2005 19:35:25
From: Kitchen Man
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:20:53 +0530, "Sky Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

>hello all,
>
>I am posting 4 of my games here. None of the are of good quality as i am a
>beginner player and is still learning this great game.
>
>I would really appreciate it if some kind souls can spend some of their time
>in looking at my games and tell me where i can improve. I am not really
>talking about the tactical mistakes here, as i can get them with Junior 9 -
>but about technique and style and main things i should focus on improving my
>game as a whole. I am planning to play my first tourney next month.

The first thing you're going to have to do is reevaluate what
chessmaster claims its ratings are in these games. The second thing is
to not listen to evil sarcastic people in newsgroups that claim you are
a prodigy. You play well enough, but these games are not brilliancies,
they are very average.

>So, on to the games:
>
>here are my two losses as white, against chessmaster personalities:
>
>Time Control: 30 mins per player.
>Walker vs Jade(CMX personality - 2300+ rated )
>( i know its a lame excuse, but i ran into time trouble on move 24, with 7
>mins left, my opp has 16 :( )

Well, if Chessmaster claims to be playing as a 2300 player with the
black pieces, then someone has vastly overrated its rating. Moves 6 and
8 are inferior for black, and move 9 is a strategic disaster.

Ok, for you, I think white's play at move 11 is timid. Don't move this
guy 'till you must. Black makes another poor move at 11. White's move
12 loses the advantage. I can see now that you wanted to build Kside
pressure, but it took too much time and really didn't gain anything.

Black continues to try to give the game away at move 13, so you get
advantage back with that poor move. (Honestly, the computer is playing
like a 1500 rating at best here - I rarely see any engine miss a
tactical combination unless severely handicapped - 13...Nxd4!). Your
pawn advance on the Kside is way too premature. You simply gave that h
pawn away. Then, moving the g pawn continues to degrade your king
position, while black's is still secure, in view of the piece activity
you have there.

Black wastes more time on moves 16, 17 and 18 (should be consolidating a
Kside defense instead of puttering away on the Qside). Move 18 is
particularly bad. C'mon now, admit it, you were kidding about the
setup, the CM opponent is *not* playing like an expert!

Retreating the rook to h2 is really good, I probably would have tried to
press the attack and left it there. Black totally throws the game away
by not playing 21...Nxd3, trading a relatively out of play knight for
one of white's strong attackers.

22 Nxh7 is good albeit obvious, and 22...Kxh7 stinks to high heaven (it
is mate in 7 for white after that), although by now it is hard to find a
good move for black. You get back to a mate in 7 at move 25, so far so
good. I'm going to start to hammer a point here - get all your pieces
into the attack. Instead of pressing the attack immediately with 23
Bf8, get the other rook over first. 23 Rah1.

26 Bxg6 is weak. You need to get your queen onto the weak black squares
on black's Kside. Black just gave up its black bishop to give the king
an escape square. Take the escape away by getting your queen on those
black squares! Don't let the king get away! Black's response is also
weak. 1500 player again. No, I take that back, closer to 1300. As you
ramp into your attack, you aren't finding the best moves. Probably the
time trouble you talked about. You're just throwing material at the
position, instead of finding the line that traps the king instead of
chasing him away.

Believe it or not, taking the queen on move 31 is not the strongest
move. You needed to get your knight and queen into the game a long time
ago, and you still need to! When you attack, you must attack with
superior force, concentrated on the weak point of the enemy's camp.
This is a basic tenet of warfare, and chess is warfare. Once you spend
your last rook, you have no more pieces attacking the enemy!

After 32 c3, all you have is a slight material advantage. Then, *ack*,
black makes another poor move, retreating the knight to a lousy square
instead of posting it strongly on d2. You did well to finally regroup
the knight and queen on black's Qside, just think how strong this would
have been when you had a rook and two bishops there!

Now, with the black king chased over to the Qside, black's useless
bishop isn't so useless anymore. You missed 38 Qxe6+. 39 Qxa6+ is
weak. Concentrate on the center! Any piece on the edge, with the
possible exception of bishops, loses effectivity, even in the endgame.

40 g4 is weak. It's too early to think about queening. You need to
improve your queen's position. On a6, it has barely the strength of a
pawn. Check it out - zero mobility!! The queen is trapped on a6!

42 Kf1 loses. 43 Ke2 is even worse, because it blocks the queen's line
of retreat to stop the pawn. I can't begin to imagine what you were
thinking here. Typical for a computer playing handicapped, its last
series of moves were flawless.

>1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Be7 4.Bd3 O-O 5.O-O b6 6.Nbd2 d6 7.e4 Bb7 8.e5 Ne8
>9.Ne4 d5 10.Neg5 g6 11.Nh3 Nc6 12.Bh6 Ng7 13.Nhg5 Na5 14.h4 Re8 15.h5 Nxh5
>16.g3 a6 17.Kg2 Qd7 18.Rh1 Nc4 19.Rxh5 Nxb2 20.Qe2 c5 21.Rh2 c4 22.Nxh7 Kxh7
>23.Bf8+ Kg8 24.Rah1 Bh4 25.Rxh4 Kxf8 26.Bxg6 Ke7 27.Bxf7 Rf8 28.Rh7 Rxf7
>29.Rxf7+ Kxf7 30.Rh7+ Ke8 31.Rxd7 Kxd7 32.c3 Na4 33.Ng5 Re8 34.Qf3 Bc6
>35.Nh7 Kc8 36.Qf7 Nxc3 37.Nf6 Rd8 38.Qa7 Na4 39.Qxa6+ Kb8 40.g4 Rc8 41.g5
>Rc7 42.Kf1 c3 43.Ke2 c2 44.Kd2 c1=Q+ 0-1
>
>
>Time Control: 45 mins per player.
>Walker vs Rand(CMX personality - ~2100 rated (i think))
>(no time trouble here - good old blunder by me in the end and desperation
>later ;) )

Playing the King's Gambit against a computer takes balls. You dropped
into an inferior version of the Muzio, it looks like, but typical of the
first game, the computer is not finding the best moves, and is actually
playing really poor moves, allowing you to get the ad. 9...Nf6 stinks.
11 Qd3 does not help the Kside attack that you are committed to by
sacking the knight (11 Qg3).

At move 17 white is in a pickle. Down a pawn, only two pieces in play,
and about to lose one of them when black exchanges rooks, leaving black
with an overwhelming advantage of two bishops in an open position. How
can black go wrong? How about by playing the horrible 17...c6, followed
by an equally stinky 20...Be2, which allows white to rid himself of the
curse of black's two bishops. Black has played a strong advantage into
equality.

Play is good enough up until white's 28th. That puts the rook out of
play. Black doesn't seem to play the best moves after that, but then
white plays 33 b3+ which just lets black solidify its central
superiority, and leaves the a pawn open to attack. 34 Kg4 is not
stellar. You are running away from the action, where your immobile rook
and knight need the king's help. That's been your biggerest mistake,
putting your pieces in places where they get strangled.

>1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.O-O d6 6.d4 g4 7.Bxf4 gxf3 8.Qxf3
>Bxd4+ 9.Kh1 Nf6 10.c3 Bg4 11.Qd3 Bc5 12.Bg5 Nbd7 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxf6 Nxf6
>15.Qxd8+ Rxd8 16.Rxf6 Rd1+ 17.Rf1 c6 18.Bxf7+ Ke7 19.Rxd1 Bxd1 20.Nd2 Be2
>21.Re1 Kxf7 22.Rxe2 Rd8 23.g3 Ke6 24.Ne4 Rd1+ 25.Kg2 Be7 26.Nf2 Rb1 27.Nd3
>Bd6 28.Re4 Rd1 29.Re3 a5 30.Kf3 Rd2 31.h4 Kd5 32.c4+ Kxc4 33.b3+ Kd5 34.Kg4
>Kd4 35.Rf3 Rxd3 36.Rf7 e4 37.Rxh7 Rxg3+ 0-1
>
>
>here are my two wins as black, both against two human unrated opponents OTB:
>
>Time Control: 45 mins per player.
>N.N (unrated ) vs Walker

*choke* White played 1 e3. You developed your pieces well, kept
coordinated, and white strangled himself with his own wood.

>1. e3 e5 2. c3 d5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 Bd7 7. d4 e4 8.
>Nfd2 Qg5 9. c4 Bxh3 10. g3 Bxg3 11. cxd5 Bh2+ 12. Kxh2 Qg2# 0-1
>
>Time Control: 45 mins per player.
>(i ran into time trouble here too, with around 5 mins left on move 25. i
>spent 7 mins on 8th move :( )
>N.N (unrated ) vs Walker\

White's 5 Ne5 is too early, and unsupported. Instead of Nc6, Nbd7 works
as well and doesn't restrict the c pawn. In this game, it doesn't
matter, but if white would have withdrawn the knight, you would have had
an awkward position.

8...Kxf7 is a little too optimistic, Kf8 is better. Then you let your
king get drawn out into the middle with 9...Be6. Again, Kf8 is better.
Lucky for you, white has the awful Qb3+ up his sleeve, and you responded
well.

14...Kd7 looks like a waste of time to me, at this point, the king is
going to be ok in the center. White's bishop is miserable, and the
rooks can't get past the center pawns. I don't like 19...Rhg8, it's too
passive. The rooks shouldn't be saddled down with guarding pawns on the
second rank, at least not at this stage of the game. Get 'em on open
files. 20...a6 looks like a waste, too.

White's center pawn advance looks strong, but it's premature, and you
defend well. I like the way you blockaded the advance. What happened
on white's 31 Rfe1? Did he touch the wrong piece? Oh well.

>1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Ne5 Nc6 6. cxd5 Nxe5 7. dxe6 Nc6
>8. exf7+ Kxf7 9. Bc4+ Be6 10. Bxe6+ Kxe6 11. Qb3+ Qd5 12. Nc3 Qxb3 13. axb3
>Bb4 14. O-O Kd7 15. Re1 Ne4 16. Ra4 Bxc3 17. bxc3 Nxc3 18. Rc4 Nb5 19. Bb2
>Rhg8 20. Rec1 a6 21. d5 Ne7 22. e4 Rad8 23. Be5 Rc8 24. Bg3 c6 25. d6 Ng6
>26. e5 Rce8 27. Re4 Re6 28. f4 Rf8 29. Rf1 Rf5 30. h3 Nc3 31. Rfe1 Nxe4 32.
>Rxe4 Nh8 33. Rb4 Kc8 34. Bh4 Ng6 35. Rxb7 Kxb7 36. d7 Rf8 37. d8=Q Rxd8 38.
>Bxd8 Nxf4 * 0-1

These two guys were pretty poor. D class at best. You have a chance to
be a good player; I figure anyone with talent can be an expert with
study and constant play against good competition - ramp up your human
competition. There are some really strong players out there.

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker


  
Date: 02 Feb 2005 22:35:17
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
Hello, ...

En/na Kitchen Man ha escrit:
>
>>Time Control: 30 mins per player.
>>Walker vs Jade(CMX personality - 2300+ rated )
>>( i know its a lame excuse, but i ran into time trouble on move 24, with 7
>>mins left, my opp has 16 :( )
>
> Well, if Chessmaster claims to be playing as a 2300 player with the
> black pieces, then someone has vastly overrated its rating. Moves 6 and
> 8 are inferior for black, and move 9 is a strategic disaster.

I agree that 9...d5 seems very bad, it closes the long diagonal making
the Bb7 a very bad bishop and allowing a flank attack.

I don't find too much problems in previous 6th and 8th moves. Maybe you
can suggest your improvements here.

> Ok, for you, I think white's play at move 11 is timid. Don't move this
> guy 'till you must. Black makes another poor move at 11. White's move
> 12 loses the advantage. I can see now that you wanted to build Kside
> pressure, but it took too much time and really didn't gain anything.

The natural move who comes to me is 11.Qd2 to play Qf4-h4 or preparing
eventually Nxh7,Qh6, Ng5.
But I think 11.Nh3 to be good too.

I suppose you suggest for black 11...c5 trying to obtain counterchances
in the center (but the problem were 9...d5??).
Another idea is to prepare ...f6

12.Bh6 do not seem bad, ... I think you need to propose an alternative
and try to give us your thoughts about why 12.Bh6 loses the advantage.

> Black continues to try to give the game away at move 13, so you get
> advantage back with that poor move. (Honestly, the computer is playing
> like a 1500 rating at best here - I rarely see any engine miss a
> tactical combination unless severely handicapped - 13...Nxd4!). Your
> pawn advance on the Kside is way too premature. You simply gave that h
> pawn away. Then, moving the g pawn continues to degrade your king
> position, while black's is still secure, in view of the piece activity
> you have there.

ok 13...Nxd4 wins a pawn.
That proves that 13.Nhg5 was a mistake.

White had two good moves with better game:
- 13.Qd2 preparing Nhg5, Qf4
- 13.c3 (preventing ...Nb4)

> Black wastes more time on moves 16, 17 and 18 (should be consolidating a
> Kside defense instead of puttering away on the Qside). Move 18 is
> particularly bad. C'mon now, admit it, you were kidding about the
> setup, the CM opponent is *not* playing like an expert!

I agree that black wasted time.
Here is needed to KNOW if black can take to rook in h5 in order to know
if white refuted black passivity correctly.

I ask me what white actually saw when played 19.Rxh5.

> Retreating the rook to h2 is really good, I probably would have tried to
> press the attack and left it there. Black totally throws the game away
> by not playing 21...Nxd3, trading a relatively out of play knight for
> one of white's strong attackers.

Here I miss some analysis of 21....Nxd3. I ask me if black can save the
game being a piece down.

> 22 Nxh7 is good albeit obvious, and 22...Kxh7 stinks to high heaven (it
> is mate in 7 for white after that), although by now it is hard to find a
> good move for black. You get back to a mate in 7 at move 25, so far so
> good. I'm going to start to hammer a point here - get all your pieces
> into the attack. Instead of pressing the attack immediately with 23
> Bf8, get the other rook over first. 23 Rah1.

That comment seems to me a typical computer suggestion. Any human player
will try here to find a "safe win" no matter if there are a fast one.

I would say the same with respect to later comments about 26.Bxg6 and
31.Rxd7 ... only computers think in that way.

> 26 Bxg6 is weak. You need to get your queen onto the weak black squares
> on black's Kside. Black just gave up its black bishop to give the king
> an escape square. Take the escape away by getting your queen on those
> black squares! Don't let the king get away! Black's response is also
> weak. 1500 player again. No, I take that back, closer to 1300. As you
> ramp into your attack, you aren't finding the best moves. Probably the
> time trouble you talked about. You're just throwing material at the
> position, instead of finding the line that traps the king instead of
> chasing him away.
>
> Believe it or not, taking the queen on move 31 is not the strongest
> move. You needed to get your knight and queen into the game a long time
> ago, and you still need to! When you attack, you must attack with
> superior force, concentrated on the weak point of the enemy's camp.
> This is a basic tenet of warfare, and chess is warfare. Once you spend
> your last rook, you have no more pieces attacking the enemy!
>
> After 32 c3, all you have is a slight material advantage. Then, *ack*,
> black makes another poor move, retreating the knight to a lousy square
> instead of posting it strongly on d2. You did well to finally regroup
> the knight and queen on black's Qside, just think how strong this would
> have been when you had a rook and two bishops there!
>
> Now, with the black king chased over to the Qside, black's useless
> bishop isn't so useless anymore. You missed 38 Qxe6+. 39 Qxa6+ is
> weak. Concentrate on the center! Any piece on the edge, with the
> possible exception of bishops, loses effectivity, even in the endgame.

From a computer point of view 39.Qxa6 is bad, ... ok, but the problem
was that 38.Qa7 had this idea and the "whole idea" was bad.
White queen has lost mobility and maybe white is winning yet but some
moves before white had an easier task.

> 40 g4 is weak. It's too early to think about queening. You need to
> improve your queen's position. On a6, it has barely the strength of a
> pawn. Check it out - zero mobility!! The queen is trapped on a6!
>
> 42 Kf1 loses. 43 Ke2 is even worse, because it blocks the queen's line
> of retreat to stop the pawn. I can't begin to imagine what you were
> thinking here. Typical for a computer playing handicapped, its last
> series of moves were flawless.
>
>>1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Be7 4.Bd3 O-O 5.O-O b6 6.Nbd2 d6 7.e4 Bb7 8.e5 Ne8
>>9.Ne4 d5 10.Neg5 g6 11.Nh3 Nc6 12.Bh6 Ng7 13.Nhg5 Na5 14.h4 Re8 15.h5 Nxh5
>>16.g3 a6 17.Kg2 Qd7 18.Rh1 Nc4 19.Rxh5 Nxb2 20.Qe2 c5 21.Rh2 c4 22.Nxh7 Kxh7
>>23.Bf8+ Kg8 24.Rah1 Bh4 25.Rxh4 Kxf8 26.Bxg6 Ke7 27.Bxf7 Rf8 28.Rh7 Rxf7
>>29.Rxf7+ Kxf7 30.Rh7+ Ke8 31.Rxd7 Kxd7 32.c3 Na4 33.Ng5 Re8 34.Qf3 Bc6
>>35.Nh7 Kc8 36.Qf7 Nxc3 37.Nf6 Rd8 38.Qa7 Na4 39.Qxa6+ Kb8 40.g4 Rc8 41.g5
>>Rc7 42.Kf1 c3 43.Ke2 c2 44.Kd2 c1=Q+ 0-1

AT

Pd: I think that anoter interesting idea can be posting white player
here his own thoughts about that game after reading that messages.



   
Date: 04 Feb 2005 14:23:48
From: Kitchen Man
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:35:17 +0100, Antonio Torrecillas
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Hello, ...
>
>En/na Kitchen Man ha escrit:
>>
>>>Time Control: 30 mins per player.
>>>Walker vs Jade(CMX personality - 2300+ rated )
>>>( i know its a lame excuse, but i ran into time trouble on move 24, with 7
>>>mins left, my opp has 16 :( )
>>
>> Well, if Chessmaster claims to be playing as a 2300 player with the
>> black pieces, then someone has vastly overrated its rating. Moves 6 and
>> 8 are inferior for black, and move 9 is a strategic disaster.
>
>I agree that 9...d5 seems very bad, it closes the long diagonal making
>the Bb7 a very bad bishop and allowing a flank attack.
>
>I don't find too much problems in previous 6th and 8th moves. Maybe you
>can suggest your improvements here.

I don't like 6...d6 because black has already played b6 in order to post
the B on b7. It looks like a pointless move. I see that it does defend
against e5 by white, but then black doesn't use it to defend when white
does play 8 d5. I don't like 8...Nd8 because I think it's the worst of
3 choices for moving the knight.

>> Ok, for you, I think white's play at move 11 is timid. Don't move this
>> guy 'till you must. Black makes another poor move at 11. White's move
>> 12 loses the advantage. I can see now that you wanted to build Kside
>> pressure, but it took too much time and really didn't gain anything.
>
>The natural move who comes to me is 11.Qd2 to play Qf4-h4 or preparing
>eventually Nxh7,Qh6, Ng5.
>But I think 11.Nh3 to be good too.

Yes, because it allows the bishop to move into the weakness on h6, but
it does take time - that's the only reason I see it as inferior.

>I suppose you suggest for black 11...c5 trying to obtain counterchances
>in the center (but the problem were 9...d5??).
>Another idea is to prepare ...f6

Yeah, 11...Nc6 stifles the c pawn and stops counterplay in the center.

>12.Bh6 do not seem bad, ... I think you need to propose an alternative
>and try to give us your thoughts about why 12.Bh6 loses the advantage.

I was a little too hasty with that judgement. Bh6 fits in with white's
strategic plan, and is as good as any move.

>> Black continues to try to give the game away at move 13, so you get
>> advantage back with that poor move. (Honestly, the computer is playing
>> like a 1500 rating at best here - I rarely see any engine miss a
>> tactical combination unless severely handicapped - 13...Nxd4!). Your
>> pawn advance on the Kside is way too premature. You simply gave that h
>> pawn away. Then, moving the g pawn continues to degrade your king
>> position, while black's is still secure, in view of the piece activity
>> you have there.
>
>ok 13...Nxd4 wins a pawn.
>That proves that 13.Nhg5 was a mistake.
>
>White had two good moves with better game:
>- 13.Qd2 preparing Nhg5, Qf4
>- 13.c3 (preventing ...Nb4)

Agreed.

>> Black wastes more time on moves 16, 17 and 18 (should be consolidating a
>> Kside defense instead of puttering away on the Qside). Move 18 is
>> particularly bad. C'mon now, admit it, you were kidding about the
>> setup, the CM opponent is *not* playing like an expert!
>
>I agree that black wasted time.
>Here is needed to KNOW if black can take to rook in h5 in order to know
>if white refuted black passivity correctly.
>
>I ask me what white actually saw when played 19.Rxh5.

It's mate in four if white takes the rook.

>> Retreating the rook to h2 is really good, I probably would have tried to
>> press the attack and left it there. Black totally throws the game away
>> by not playing 21...Nxd3, trading a relatively out of play knight for
>> one of white's strong attackers.
>
>Here I miss some analysis of 21....Nxd3. I ask me if black can save the
>game being a piece down.

I'm focused on trading an inactive, uncooperative piece for a poised
attacker. Whether black can save the game is already tenuous, but I
don't see a better move. After 21...c4 black is way worse than one
piece down, but in any case it does not seem that there is any defense
available to Nxh7. It's a good attack, and I see Chernev's stamp on it.

>> 22 Nxh7 is good albeit obvious, and 22...Kxh7 stinks to high heaven (it
>> is mate in 7 for white after that), although by now it is hard to find a
>> good move for black. You get back to a mate in 7 at move 25, so far so
>> good. I'm going to start to hammer a point here - get all your pieces
>> into the attack. Instead of pressing the attack immediately with 23
>> Bf8, get the other rook over first. 23 Rah1.
>
>That comment seems to me a typical computer suggestion. Any human player
>will try here to find a "safe win" no matter if there are a fast one.
>
>I would say the same with respect to later comments about 26.Bxg6 and
>31.Rxd7 ... only computers think in that way.

I disagree. I've read a lot of masters say that the attack should be
overwhelming. White proves in the game that hurrying the attack only
wasted his energy. But I see your point that it helps the human player
to trade down to a won endgame.

As for my comments on 26 Bxg6, what is your exception to my thoughts
that the queen should take over the black squares? That's a very
strategic idea, and not one I would readily dismiss as only being the
thought of a computer. That's right out of Steinitz, isn't it?

A further strategic objection to Bxg6 is that it opens a file of defense
for the black queen after fxg6, although tactically that idea is poor.
Over the board, though, I would use that as a reason to not play Bxg6,
and not spend the time doing a tactical analysis of the result.

More to the point, I'm advocating activating the two pieces that aren't
yet in active participation in the attack. I think Dr. Lasker would
agree. Look at the position after 31...Kxd7. Sure, black is lost, but
he's been lost since 22 Nxh7, and this is the best position black has
had since then. White has only two pieces left, and they're yet to be
adequately mobilised.

<big snip >
>> Now, with the black king chased over to the Qside, black's useless
>> bishop isn't so useless anymore. You missed 38 Qxe6+. 39 Qxa6+ is
>> weak. Concentrate on the center! Any piece on the edge, with the
>> possible exception of bishops, loses effectivity, even in the endgame.
>
> From a computer point of view 39.Qxa6 is bad, ... ok, but the problem
>was that 38.Qa7 had this idea and the "whole idea" was bad.
>White queen has lost mobility and maybe white is winning yet but some
>moves before white had an easier task.

After 37...Rd8 white still has to think hard, as black's position is
defensible. I think this shows that the strategy of trading down to a
won endgame (versus building the killer attack in the middle game) is
suspect. If not for black's passed pawn on the c file, it would be
easy, just keep black in check and advance the g pawn. It's the c pawn
that eventually wins for black.

>Pd: I think that anoter interesting idea can be posting white player
>here his own thoughts about that game after reading that messages.

Thanks for your input.

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker


    
Date: 05 Feb 2005 01:02:08
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
Hello,

Thanks Al for all your clarifications, only a point to discuss:

En/na Kitchen Man ha escrit:

>>>22 Nxh7 is good albeit obvious, and 22...Kxh7 stinks to high heaven (it
>>>is mate in 7 for white after that), although by now it is hard to find a
>>>good move for black. You get back to a mate in 7 at move 25, so far so
>>>good. I'm going to start to hammer a point here - get all your pieces
>>>into the attack. Instead of pressing the attack immediately with 23
>>>Bf8, get the other rook over first. 23 Rah1.
>>
>>That comment seems to me a typical computer suggestion. Any human player
>>will try here to find a "safe win" no matter if there are a fast one.
>>
>>I would say the same with respect to later comments about 26.Bxg6 and
>>31.Rxd7 ... only computers think in that way.
>
> I disagree. I've read a lot of masters say that the attack should be
> overwhelming. White proves in the game that hurrying the attack only
> wasted his energy. But I see your point that it helps the human player
> to trade down to a won endgame.
>
> As for my comments on 26 Bxg6, what is your exception to my thoughts
> that the queen should take over the black squares? That's a very
> strategic idea, and not one I would readily dismiss as only being the
> thought of a computer. That's right out of Steinitz, isn't it?
>
> A further strategic objection to Bxg6 is that it opens a file of defense
> for the black queen after fxg6, although tactically that idea is poor.
> Over the board, though, I would use that as a reason to not play Bxg6,
> and not spend the time doing a tactical analysis of the result.
>
> More to the point, I'm advocating activating the two pieces that aren't
> yet in active participation in the attack. I think Dr. Lasker would
> agree. Look at the position after 31...Kxd7. Sure, black is lost, but
> he's been lost since 22 Nxh7, and this is the best position black has
> had since then. White has only two pieces left, and they're yet to be
> adequately mobilised.

Loking at position after 31....Kxd7 white has a queen and a knight which
are going to be active in a few moves. White has also a safe king and a
dangereous "g" passed pawn (maybe also a dangereous "e" pawn after a
later f4-f5). Black has a poor bishop, a misplaced knight and an exposed
king. I'm convinced that any +2000 player would resign here with black.
As example my chess engine evaluates this position as +5.34

About 26.Bxg6, this and next move (27.Bxf7) are typical sacrifices to
open king position. Acurate analysis can show a faster way to win the
game but this move actually wins easily.

IMHO in positions with a exposed king the control of black squares or
the opening of a certain line are vague arguments. Analysis shows:
- 26.Qd2 with the treats of Qb4 or Qg5 is "tactics" and wins.
- 26.Qe3 has only the second idea but "tactics" seems to prove it also
wins. Here a curious line is 26.Qe3 Qd8 27.Qf4 (menacing Rh8 and Qf7)

With both moves black control black squares but those two moves are
different from tactical point of view.

I would add that in that position white queen has not much more paths to
being active (a third one can be Ng5 followed by Qf3 or Qg4 which also
seems to win)

With that I suggest that activate white queen can be the main idea to
finish the game but that can be possible after a previous Bxg6 which is
too a typical idea.

AT



   
Date: 03 Feb 2005 14:50:31
From: Sky Walker
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
> I agree that black wasted time.
> Here is needed to KNOW if black can take to rook in h5 in order to know
> if white refuted black passivity correctly.
>
> I ask me what white actually saw when played 19.Rxh5.

mebbe i am wrong, but i think 19... gxh5 would be murder for black after 20.
Bxh7+. white now has both bishops and a knight close to the black king and
black will get strangled there.

> Here I miss some analysis of 21....Nxd3. I ask me if black can save the
> game being a piece down.

is Nxd3 such a good idea? Al, i wanted to ask you this. After Qxd3, wouldnt
white get a damn good diagonal for the queen and black has no counterplay
too?

> I would say the same with respect to later comments about 26.Bxg6 and
> 31.Rxd7 ... only computers think in that way.
incidently Junior 9 considers Bxg6 as a good move.

But Rxd7 is considered bad coz he points out Ng5+ is better. This was what
Al was pointing at too, that now i can swing the queen also to action on
king side get make sure the king does not escape.

Al, can you tell me why you think Bxg6 is bad? I didnt get that. i thought
that takes out the pawns around the king.

> From a computer point of view 39.Qxa6 is bad, ... ok, but the problem

yes, i know it was stupid, but i just had a minute left, i was running out
of ideas and i was desperate :(

> Pd: I think that anoter interesting idea can be posting white player
> here his own thoughts about that game after reading that messages.

i can do that. gimme a few hours and i will post what i had thought during
the game here. probably you if guys can point out the flaws in my thinking
style, that would be beneficial 2 me.




    
Date: 03 Feb 2005 15:50:23
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
En/na Sky Walker ha escrit:
>>I agree that black wasted time.
>>Here is needed to KNOW if black can take to rook in h5 in order to know
>>if white refuted black passivity correctly.
>>
>>I ask me what white actually saw when played 19.Rxh5.
>
> mebbe i am wrong, but i think 19... gxh5 would be murder for black after 20.
> Bxh7+. white now has both bishops and a knight close to the black king and
> black will get strangled there.
>

It's possible to sacrifice a rook for intuition but I think some
analysis is needed.
I wrote that Kitchen man commented many moments but I did not see any
concrete line here.

>
>>Here I miss some analysis of 21....Nxd3. I ask me if black can save the
>>game being a piece down.
>
> is Nxd3 such a good idea? Al, i wanted to ask you this. After Qxd3, wouldnt
> white get a damn good diagonal for the queen and black has no counterplay
> too?

I don't think so, ... Mr kitchen Man wrote " Black totally throws the
game away by not playing 21...Nxd3, trading a relatively out of play
knight for one of white's strong attackers."

I wrote that that statement need any analysis. In my opinion white is
winning too.

>
>>I would say the same with respect to later comments about 26.Bxg6 and
>>31.Rxd7 ... only computers think in that way.
>
> incidently Junior 9 considers Bxg6 as a good move.
>
> But Rxd7 is considered bad coz he points out Ng5+ is better. This was what
> Al was pointing at too, that now i can swing the queen also to action on
> king side get make sure the king does not escape.
>
> Al, can you tell me why you think Bxg6 is bad? I didnt get that. i thought
> that takes out the pawns around the king.
>

IMHO when we have two moves: one evaluated (for ex) as +4 by a engine
and a second evaluated by +14, ... there is no BIG difference and we
must chose the move which seems an easier win, there is no need to
complicate matters when the fight is finished!!

Only a COMP would say that the +4 move is a mistake.

AT



     
Date: 04 Feb 2005 09:15:30
From: Sky Walker
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve

"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >>I ask me what white actually saw when played 19.Rxh5.
> >
> > mebbe i am wrong, but i think 19... gxh5 would be murder for black after
20.
> > Bxh7+. white now has both bishops and a knight close to the black king
and
> > black will get strangled there.
> >
>
> It's possible to sacrifice a rook for intuition but I think some
> analysis is needed.
> I wrote that Kitchen man commented many moments but I did not see any
> concrete line here.

well, again - i must admit i didnt not check beyond a few moves. i had
originally planned it when black has still not moved his queen and i had
Nxf7+ after Kh8. but at that moment anyway this possibility was gone. When i
threw away that pawn on h5, i always has this sac of exchange on my mind. my
reasoning is that even if king is not mated i will have a huge advantage
there (anyway i already has a pawn & knight for his rook).

yes, i agree i dont completely work out the lines to lets say 6-8 moves. it
still dont have the ability to do it fast- but i am training . hopefully i
will reach there sometime :)

One question to all of you. My aim is to reach 1800 sometime next year :
normally to what depth does an 1800 player calculate (when there are
tactical possibilities)?




      
Date: 04 Feb 2005 14:38:38
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
En/na Sky Walker ha escrit:
> One question to all of you. My aim is to reach 1800 sometime next year :
> normally to what depth does an 1800 player calculate (when there are
> tactical possibilities)?

No idea, ...

But I can say to you that a 2300-2400 player sometimes see many moves
depth but sometimes do not see 1 move depth.

In my own case, some days ago I tried to solve 1st position in the new
Aagard book "Inside the chess mind" (a book trying to show how think in
chess different people from 2 Gm and a IM ...until some novice players
using 10 different positions).

r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1

In that position white has 5 minutes to write all He can see.

"spoiler ... maybe some of you prefer to have a look at that position
before continue reading"


..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..


Doing the exercise I only considered two moves (1.Ng5 and 1.Bh6) and
curiosly I did not see (nor consider) the most logical sequence 1.dxe7
Qxe7 2.Bg5. A second thing is that I only saw white was a piece down
near the end of 5 minutes.

When I show that position to a 2425-IM he look at that line 1.dxe7 (and
considered for a brief momment 1.Ng5 to discover it do not work) and He
said He would play 1.dxe7 followed by Bg5 only for his "aspect".

I also show this same position to a 2475-GM and He considered the same
moves with more analysis. I think that this example is a matter of
difference of styles (between those two players) more than a difference
of category/level.

AT



       
Date: 04 Feb 2005 15:17:34
From: Kitchen Man
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:38:38 +0100, Antonio Torrecillas
<[email protected] > wrote:

r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1

>Doing the exercise I only considered two moves (1.Ng5 and 1.Bh6) and
>curiosly I did not see (nor consider) the most logical sequence 1.dxe7
>Qxe7 2.Bg5. A second thing is that I only saw white was a piece down
>near the end of 5 minutes.
>
>When I show that position to a 2425-IM he look at that line 1.dxe7 (and
>considered for a brief momment 1.Ng5 to discover it do not work) and He
>said He would play 1.dxe7 followed by Bg5 only for his "aspect".
>
>I also show this same position to a 2475-GM and He considered the same
>moves with more analysis. I think that this example is a matter of
>difference of styles (between those two players) more than a difference
>of category/level.

Interesting. While I saw and considered dxe7, I didn't follow it up
with Bg5, but rather kept at the idea of Bh6. I also considered Ng5 for
a second or two, and rejected it. Ultimately, when five minutes was up,
I thought Bh6 best.

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker


        
Date: 05 Feb 2005 01:19:13
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
En/na Kitchen Man ha escrit:

> r1b2rk1/pp1qpnbp/1n1P2p1/8/4N3/1B3Q2/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 1
>
>>Doing the exercise I only considered two moves (1.Ng5 and 1.Bh6) and
>>curiosly I did not see (nor consider) the most logical sequence 1.dxe7
>>Qxe7 2.Bg5. A second thing is that I only saw white was a piece down
>>near the end of 5 minutes.
>>
>>When I show that position to a 2425-IM he look at that line 1.dxe7 (and
>>considered for a brief momment 1.Ng5 to discover it do not work) and He
>>said He would play 1.dxe7 followed by Bg5 only for his "aspect".
>>
>>I also show this same position to a 2475-GM and He considered the same
>>moves with more analysis. I think that this example is a matter of
>>difference of styles (between those two players) more than a difference
>>of category/level.
>
> Interesting. While I saw and considered dxe7, I didn't follow it up
> with Bg5, but rather kept at the idea of Bh6. I also considered Ng5 for
> a second or two, and rejected it. Ultimately, when five minutes was up,
> I thought Bh6 best.
>

That book is an interesting work. In it we can read that GM Yusupov
considered mainly this 1.dxe7 Qxe7 2.Bg5 idea, GM Nielsen had a similar
approach, ... and an strong engine only "considered as best" 1.Bh6 at
all plies.

I would like to add that I saw 1.Ng5 exd6 2.Nxf7 Rxf7 3.Qxf7 Qxf7 4.Re8
Bf8 5.Bh6 Be6 -+ (as the two GM saw). I did not see 2...d5 in that line
which is easier. I did not calculate acurately the consequences of 1.Bh6
(of course). But the fact who worries me is not having considered the
menctioned "natural" line in my 5 minutes. Curiously 1.Bh6 seems to be
the best move but my decision was pure lottery.

I think that to read how think players of different levels can be very
interesting. But with this example I only tried to show that some people
(me in that case) can not see 1 move depth in an example and much morei
in other examples.

AT



  
Date: 02 Feb 2005 09:40:20
From: Sky Walker
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
I thanks you for your time and the effort it took.

> The first thing you're going to have to do is reevaluate what
> chessmaster claims its ratings are in these games.

I am very clear that the ratings in CM X are bogus. i have a decent machine,
a 1 Ghz Athlon with 256 MB RAM so it beats my why CM X would artifcially
jack up the ratings.

In fact i have played 13 games with CM X and have a 2105 rating! that
because i beat a 1600 guy and got to 2000, beat a 1998 rated guy and got to
2130 and played the rest of my games against 2300-2400. i kept losing
thereafter, but lose only 1 or 2 points. Not that this rating is of any
significance - but its funny ;)))

> The second thing is
> to not listen to evil sarcastic people in newsgroups that claim you are
> a prodigy. You play well enough, but these games are not brilliancies,
> they are very average.

I can assure you that i am under no delusion that my games are brilliancies.
If they were - i wont be losing ;)))

and as for sarcasm, the thought did cross my mind- but i would sitll give
him the benefit of doubt. he just mentioned my games were better than a
beginner.

> Black wastes more time on moves 16, 17 and 18 (should be consolidating a
> Kside defense instead of puttering away on the Qside). Move 18 is
> particularly bad. C'mon now, admit it, you were kidding about the
> setup, the CM opponent is *not* playing like an expert!
i dunno. i am not kidding about the setup - i was playing a rated game of 30
mins with Jade, rated 2305. If u have chess master X please check it out
yourself.

Or is it that 1Ghz is too slow?

> 22 Nxh7 is good albeit obvious, and 22...Kxh7 stinks to high heaven (it
> is mate in 7 for white after that)
i have a mate in 7 here? i will be damned! why didnt Junior 9 find this? i
put him to analyse my games at 100 seconds per move (overnight)

> Believe it or not, taking the queen on move 31 is not the strongest
> move.
Yes, Fritz says Ng5+

> You needed to get your knight and queen into the game a long time
> ago, and you still need to! When you attack, you must attack with
> superior force, concentrated on the weak point of the enemy's camp.
> This is a basic tenet of warfare, and chess is warfare. Once you spend
> your last rook, you have no more pieces attacking the enemy!

good point. didnt really strike me at that time. thanks.

> 42 Kf1 loses. 43 Ke2 is even worse, because it blocks the queen's line
> of retreat to stop the pawn. I can't begin to imagine what you were
> thinking here. Typical for a computer playing handicapped, its last
> series of moves were flawless.

what do you mean by playing handicapped? as in a lower rating? or any
settings?

> Playing the King's Gambit against a computer takes balls.

i really dont spend time on learning openings - so mainly i play colle and
kings gambit - the only openings i liked in the book "logical chess". And to
be frank, i am still not sure what to play as black ;)

i would really like to hear if you have any suggestions.


>> What happened
> on white's 31 Rfe1? Did he touch the wrong piece? Oh well.

well , i started beating this guy a month back - and ever since he feels
obliged to make a few blunders each game ;))

> These two guys were pretty poor. D class at best. You have a chance to
> be a good player; I figure anyone with talent can be an expert with
> study and constant play against good competition - ramp up your human
> competition. There are some really strong players out there.

thanks but my questions are:

- what are my weakness that i should improve on?
- i currently train with CT Art 3 and read "logical chess". Should i keep
with it or study something else?
- i plan to take part in a tourney next month (playing in the unrated
section). should i be worried about learning the opening or just play what i
know?
- is there any opening you suggest that i try out?

once again, thanks for your time.




   
Date: 04 Feb 2005 01:38:38
From: Bark!
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
Ratings are good, you just don't know how to find yours. I can play CM 100
times and still be 2300. Try playing the rating that you have, you'll soon
find out where you belong. Cheers.




   
Date: 02 Feb 2005 08:10:44
From: Kitchen Man
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:40:20 +0530, "Sky Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
>thanks but my questions are:
>
>- what are my weakness that i should improve on?

Nothing more that what I already preached on.

>- i currently train with CT Art 3 and read "logical chess". Should i keep
>with it or study something else?

Chernev's book is really good, it was the best source I had when I was a
beginner. I wish I still had it.

>- i plan to take part in a tourney next month (playing in the unrated
>section). should i be worried about learning the opening or just play what i
>know?

Play what you know. Like being good in sports, focus on the
fundamentals. You already know blockade and fast development, and you
have a good sense of attack (that Bxh3 typical sacrifice is in Chernev's
book, isn't it?). Knights posted in the center, bishops on open
diagonals, rooks on open files. I emphasise that last one, I think you
tend to use your rooks a little too passively.

>- is there any opening you suggest that i try out?

Learn the sicilian soon (everybody plays it), and don't worry a lot
about intricacies at first. Understand that a key for black is
exploiting the half open c file and use your talent from there.

Start to study basic endgames. When the competition gets better, you
are going to want to know the endgame. It's difficult!

--
Al Brennan
"In life, we are all duffers.
Error and mistake are our daily bread." Dr. Lasker


    
Date: 03 Feb 2005 14:36:28
From: Sky Walker
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
> Play what you know. Like being good in sports, focus on the
> fundamentals. You already know blockade and fast development, and you
> have a good sense of attack (that Bxh3 typical sacrifice is in Chernev's
> book, isn't it?).
yup - i have just finished going thru the first 13 games. it was a lot of
relevation to me. bishop sacs on f7 and h7 and g6. and especially
exploitation of the light squared /dark squared weakness. There is one game
by borovsky where he just uses the dark square weakness - first he forces
the g6 advance, then he picks up the dark squared bishop with his knight and
manuevers smoothly to the king side. its very simple and amazing - he doesnt
play a single sac or a combination - but wins the game rather effortlessly!

now that i learnt about these ideas, a lot of other king side attack games
make sense! I would probably re-read these games again - and get to queen
pawn openings - which he mentions as more strategical.

> diagonals, rooks on open files. I emphasise that last one, I think you
> tend to use your rooks a little too passively.

good observation. i have found using rooks to be cumbersome. for me they
take a lot of time to come to the game, and its really difficult to get them
an open file or swing them to the king side (f/g/h files). i will probably
go thru some games where rooks are effectively used and learn better ideas.

> Start to study basic endgames. When the competition gets better, you
> are going to want to know the endgame. It's difficult!

everybody i know tells me this. its rather boring - but i should start it
soon.




   
Date: 02 Feb 2005 09:02:25
From: Eerikki Maula
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
Sky Walker wrote:
> thanks but my questions are:
>
> - what are my weakness that i should improve on?
> - i currently train with CT Art 3 and read "logical chess". Should i keep
> with it or study something else?
> - i plan to take part in a tourney next month (playing in the unrated
> section). should i be worried about learning the opening or just play what i
> know?
> - is there any opening you suggest that i try out?
>
>
>

Hi Sky Walker!

My own situation is very much like yours - I started to study chess a
bit more seriously about six months ago. I think you are on a right
path, tactics and basic guidelines to playing chess is what you need.

Few suggestions :

- Keep it simple, CT-Art and Logical Chess are the right medicine. The
key is repetion, so going through the tactic puzzles again and again is
often adviced (maybe just the levels 10-60). You might also want to
check from databases what Colle lines Chernev has not shown in he's book.

- One book that might suit you is Sillman's Amateur's Mind, it is easy
to read and shows what faults beginning players often have in their play.

- Going through your games is a good thing, but I've found that it helps
more if you can store the novelties in the opening and tactical errors
somewhere. When I go through my games with Friz I update my repertuare
and copy the tactical positions in to Chess Position Trainer. You might
like to check this brilliant freeware (
http://www.chesspositiontrainer.com ).

- I also suggest you to check the Chess Cafe archives, especially Dan
Heisman's Novice Nook -columns (
http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm ).


Good luck,

- Eerikki



    
Date: 02 Feb 2005 13:29:07
From: Sky Walker
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
thanks Eerikki,

a) i am just doing 10-30 levels in CT Art for starters. mebbe i will do
this a few times, and come back to 40-60 when i am really comfortable with
10-30.

b) i have downloaded CPT. will check it out. as of now i keep my own db as a
cbh.

c) i will probably pick up amateurs mind. i still havent completed chernev
:((

d) i have now got vukovic (art of attack) - probably i would like to go thru
that once i finish chernev. it looks good - but complicated compared to
chernev.

e) i checked Dans columns that u have suggested. lot of info there. will
take me sometime :)

good leads - and thanks a lot.

Walker
i have downloaded
"Eerikki Maula" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sky Walker wrote:
> > thanks but my questions are:
> >
> > - what are my weakness that i should improve on?
> > - i currently train with CT Art 3 and read "logical chess". Should i
keep
> > with it or study something else?
> > - i plan to take part in a tourney next month (playing in the unrated
> > section). should i be worried about learning the opening or just play
what i
> > know?
> > - is there any opening you suggest that i try out?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hi Sky Walker!
>
> My own situation is very much like yours - I started to study chess a
> bit more seriously about six months ago. I think you are on a right
> path, tactics and basic guidelines to playing chess is what you need.
>
> Few suggestions :
>
> - Keep it simple, CT-Art and Logical Chess are the right medicine. The
> key is repetion, so going through the tactic puzzles again and again is
> often adviced (maybe just the levels 10-60). You might also want to
> check from databases what Colle lines Chernev has not shown in he's book.
>
> - One book that might suit you is Sillman's Amateur's Mind, it is easy
> to read and shows what faults beginning players often have in their play.
>
> - Going through your games is a good thing, but I've found that it helps
> more if you can store the novelties in the opening and tactical errors
> somewhere. When I go through my games with Friz I update my repertuare
> and copy the tactical positions in to Chess Position Trainer. You might
> like to check this brilliant freeware (
> http://www.chesspositiontrainer.com ).
>
> - I also suggest you to check the Chess Cafe archives, especially Dan
> Heisman's Novice Nook -columns (
> http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm ).
>
>
> Good luck,
>
> - Eerikki
>




     
Date: 02 Feb 2005 23:57:44
From: JFB
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
I'd probably hold off onVukovic for a while yet. I'm pretty much in the
same boat as you, and from what I've read, it seems the Art of Attack is a
little advanced for us. Just my 2�

"Sky Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[snip]
> d) i have now got vukovic (art of attack) - probably i would like to go
> thru
> that once i finish chernev. it looks good - but complicated compared to
> chernev.
>
[snip]




      
Date: 03 Feb 2005 14:24:32
From: Sky Walker
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
yup. mebbe u r right. i felt the same when i glanced thru the contents.
but i must say, the material look quite tempting ;))


"JFB" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'd probably hold off onVukovic for a while yet. I'm pretty much in the
> same boat as you, and from what I've read, it seems the Art of Attack is a
> little advanced for us. Just my 2�
>
> "Sky Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> [snip]
> > d) i have now got vukovic (art of attack) - probably i would like to go
> > thru
> > that once i finish chernev. it looks good - but complicated compared to
> > chernev.
> >
> [snip]
>
>




 
Date: 31 Jan 2005 21:02:16
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
Are you sure you are a beginner? When exactly did you learn
the moves and start playing? The reason why I ask is that
your play is *MUCH* stronger than a typical beginner. If you
really are a beginner, then you must be a chess prodigy.



  
Date: 01 Feb 2005 10:50:41
From: Sky Walker
Subject: Re: 4 of my games: please tell me how to improve
Well, thanks for the kind words. I am an adult player (28) and not a prodigy
in anything, much less chess :(

I learnt chess at 17, never really played for last 10 years. i have been
playing chess with fritz5/Junior 9 and reading logical chess by chernev
(thats where i learnt colle system) and training with Ct-Art 3.0 (suggested
to me in this group) for the last three months - so i guess i am not typical
beginner.

what i meant when i said a beginner was : never played any tourney/ICC/good
human opponents or something like that.


<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Are you sure you are a beginner? When exactly did you learn
> the moves and start playing? The reason why I ask is that
> your play is *MUCH* stronger than a typical beginner. If you
> really are a beginner, then you must be a chess prodigy.
>