| |
Main
Date: 15 Apr 2006 16:26:38
From:
Subject: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
Last month I played in a one-day event, a four-round Swiss with about
16 players. I had been away from competitive chess for many, many
years, having played only 4 games in a period of decades, and those
leading to a lowly 1000 rating. In this event I was easily the lowest
rated player; other ratings ranged from about 1200 to 1800 in this
section.
I played the first round against a 1600 and won. I played the second
round against an 1800 and drew, opting for a perpetual in a Q and P
ending rather than reduce to a pure P ending and risk misevaluation
against a much higher rated player (can you see what's coming
already?). I played the third round against a 1300 and won a scrappy
game where I didn't play so well but the other fellow made too many
mistakes.
That got me to the 4th round and playing at the first table with 2.5/3
in clear 2nd place against the leader who had 3/3 and was rated 1700.
Now, at that point.... I *knew* I was not good enough to be where I
was. I *knew* I would lose because if I won, I would win the
tournament, and I wasn't good enough.
See the picture?
Of course I lost, and very quickly, staying in an even game for 10
moves and then making 3 bad moves in a row. But after all, I *knew* I
should lose, so I had to prove it, right?
I still won the class prize but that of course isn't the point. Any
advice or suggested remedy for such an absurd defeatist attitude,
before I play my next tournament?
Thanks in advance.
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 11:14:53
From:
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
Wonderful advice and analysis and much for me to think about. Thanks
to everyone for the time you took to reply.
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2006 19:26:27
From:
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
Thanks to all for some great advice about playing my own game and
believing in myself based on actual results! I will post my last,
losing game, not because it is an interesting game but because it *is*
an instance of how to psych yourself out (negatively); hopefully
someone else can look at the game and say, "I better not do that
stuff!"
1. d4 Nf6
A King's Indian guy.
2. e3
I like the Stonewall, I've done mostly OK with it.
2. ... g6
He continues his game ...
3. Bd3
I continue mine.
3. ... d6
He is the first one out of book. As will be seen, he wants to play c5
later but the move also prevents my playing Ne5 later. However, is
this really a strong move? I don't think so, but I don't react
strongly either.
4. c3
I continue doggedly with my plan, but given Black's last move maybe I
should have gone with c4?
4. ..Bg7
5. f4 Nbd7
6. Nf3 c5
7. O-O O-O
I have my full Stonewall, he has replied in the center, we're castled.
I'm hardly out of the game as White!
8. Nbd2 a6
He's ready to roll some pawns, I think.
9. Nb3
And so I pick the dumbest move on the board. I started worrying about
his potential queenside advance, thinking "this guy is soooooo much
better he must have something going." But in fact up to now he played
a very uninspired game! I just made up my mind to play worse! Fritz
suggests Qe1 but I like the looks of f5! where I start some genuine
action on the k-side.
9. ... Qc7
Setting up a pawn fork. Any advantage I had is gone, but Fritz still
scores the game as about even.
10. dxc5
I probably could have bit the bullet and retreated the N back to d2,
but instead I open up the position on the Q side, to his advantage.
Bad error no. 2 in a row!
10. ... dxc5
I thought he should have played Nxc5 then after Nxc5 Qxc5 his Q is
pointed at my e3 pawn and through that at my K.
11. Qe2
OK, this isn't so bad, I actually get back on track. I've still given
black the advantage but it's certainly still manageable.
11... b5
I had expected Rd8, but Fritz gives Nb6, renewing the fork threat and
holding the advantage. The move actually played would have allowed me
to equalize with c4! then black either gets an isolated pawn or a
backward pawn and the q-side attack seems to vaporize.
12. Nbd2
Instead I played this very weak move, thinking to eliminate once and
for all the pawn fork threat.... which was no longer really there.
Black has an increasing advantage, it seems....
14. ... Bb7
Certainly not bad, but c4 would have really given black a big Q side
space advantage; now I can still play c4 myself....
13. b3 ?
What was I thinking? It goes like this: "Oh boy oh boy I've played
sooooo bad in this game now I have to do something to prove I can lose
it...." Black now wins at least a pawn with a strong position to boot.
13. ... Nd5
Right on the money. Hard to miss!
14. Rb1 ???
So let's end the game reeeelly fast here!
14. ... Nxc3
White loses at least the exchange and a pawn. That is not the same as
losing the game, but I was so demoralized I just wanted to be anywhere
but in the tournament room, so I resigned, maybe prematurely.
0-1
Of course I played rather poorly to say the least. The 1700 guy,
however, did not dazzle with his brilliance. In fact after 8 moves I
had a good game going but DIDN"T BELIEVE IN IT! And that was my
downfall.
I must be fair. It is quite likely the case that my opponent was a
better player than I. That isn't the point, there are thousands of
better players. But an objective view of the game shows that he was
hardly as superior as I mentally made him out to be. I was not in a
true "outclassed" situation in this matchup, but I let myself believe
that I was!
Again, thanks to all for your advice and comments.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 12:21:04
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> 1. d4 Nf6
>
> A King's Indian guy.
How do you know? 1.d4 Nf6 can transpose into just about any QP
opening apart from the Dutch.
> 2. e3 g6 3. Bd3 d6
>
> He is the first one out of book.
Just because your opening manual doesn't list this particular move
doesn't mean that your opponent is `out of book'. Now he does have a
king's Indian setup and it's likely that he has a reasonable under-
standing of how to play that kind of position. That's much more
important than memorizing lots of moves from `the book'.
> 4. c3 Bg7 5. f4 Nbd7 6. Nf3 c5 7. O-O O-O 8. Nbd2 a6 9. Nb3
>
> But in fact up to now he played a very uninspired game!
Who needs inspiration? He has a nice position with no weaknesses; you
have an OK position but your QB is badly hemmed in and f4 means your
king might get a bit weak later on.
> I just made up my mind to play worse! Fritz suggests Qe1 but I like
> the looks of f5! where I start some genuine action on the k-side.
Without having analyzed, I'd say `f5?!'. You're not well-enough
developed to start a kingside attack. Further, if Black can keep the
centre closed, opening the g-file and playing Kh8, Rg8 might actually
help him attack your king.
> 9... Qc7 10. dxc5 dxc5 11. Qe2 b5
>
> I had expected Rd8, but Fritz gives Nb6, renewing the fork threat
> and holding the advantage. The move actually played would have
> allowed me to equalize with c4! then black either gets an isolated
> pawn or a backward pawn and the q-side attack seems to vaporize.
Your talk of equalizing and advantages makes me worry that you've put
the game through Fritz and are paying too much attention to the little
numbers it puts after the moves. What's your reasoning behind
declaring 12.c4 to bring equality?
> What was I thinking? It goes like this: "Oh boy oh boy I've played
> sooooo bad in this game now I have to do something to prove I can
> lose it...."
I recommend playing a few more tournaments. Once you get used to the
pressure of having to play good moves all day, you'll feel less
jittery and it'll be easier to concentrate. (Of course, if jittery is
good for you, you can always recreate the effect by tanking up on
caffeine. (-: ) As people have pointed out, you did pretty well this
time and you're only going to get better as you get more practice and
get more used to the environment.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disposable Chocolate Spoon (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a piece of cutlery that's
made of chocolate but you never have
to clean it!
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 23:44:20
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>1. d4 Nf6
>>
>>A King's Indian guy.
>
> How do you know? 1.d4 Nf6 can transpose into just about any QP
> opening apart from the Dutch.
And also a Dutch!! (all is possible in chess)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 c6 5.Bg2 Nbd7 6.0-0 Ne4 followed by ...f5
trasposing to Stone Wall Dutch
Some people prefer this order to avoid Staunton gambit.
Antonio
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 10:43:06
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
>> 1.d4 Nf6 can transpose into just about any QP opening apart from
>> the Dutch.
>
> And also a Dutch!! (all is possible in chess)
>
> 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 c6 5.Bg2 Nbd7 6.0-0 Ne4 followed by ...f5
> trasposing to Stone Wall Dutch
>
> Some people prefer this order to avoid Staunton gambit.
I bow before your superior knowledge. :-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Cheese (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a brick of cheese but it's twice
as fast!
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 05:13:49
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> 1. d4 Nf6
> A King's Indian guy.
> 2. e3
> I like the Stonewall, I've done mostly OK with it.
> 2. ... g6
> He continues his game ...
> 3. Bd3
> I continue mine.
> 3. ... d6
> He is the first one out of book. As will be seen, he wants to play c5
> later but the move also prevents my playing Ne5 later. However, is
> this really a strong move? I don't think so, but I don't react
> strongly either.
Is he really out of book? This is a pretty simple thematic device -
playing d6 in order to may e5 or c5 later. And saying that he's "out of
book" in such a non-theoretical position is really sort of pointless.
What matters is if he's setting up a strategy that he knows how to
execute. More important than memorizing variations is memorizing ideas,
and what I see here is setting up an idea to hit at your center.
>
> 4. c3
>
> I continue doggedly with my plan, but given Black's last move maybe I
> should have gone with c4?
Again, why are you so convinced his last move is bad? It's a thematic
kings indian move and playing C4 simply throws you into a KID where
you've boxed in your QB without provocation.
The Stonewall is known to lose a lot of effectiveness against a
fianchettoed KB.
> 4. ..Bg7
>
> 5. f4 Nbd7
> 6. Nf3 c5
> 7. O-O O-O
>
> I have my full Stonewall, he has replied in the center, we're castled.
> I'm hardly out of the game as White!
Your position is certainly fine, although I prefer black because I
don't think your space advantage amounts to much, and I'm worried about
that QB.
> 8. Nbd2 a6
>
> He's ready to roll some pawns, I think.
>
> 9. Nb3
>
> And so I pick the dumbest move on the board. I started worrying about
> his potential queenside advance, thinking "this guy is soooooo much
> better he must have something going." But in fact up to now he played
> a very uninspired game! I just made up my mind to play worse! Fritz
> suggests Qe1 but I like the looks of f5! where I start some genuine
> action on the k-side.
f5 is very straightforward, but it's really unlikely to amount to much.
You need an advantage to attack, and what's your advantage? A slight
spatial plus on the kingside. Black's position is very solid, and f5
strikes me as overambitious.
That being said, overambitious moves win sometimes at the class level.
But if you're really concerned about his queenside pawns, then a4! is
the right move.
> 9. ... Qc7
>
> Setting up a pawn fork. Any advantage I had is gone, but Fritz still
> scores the game as about even.
>
>
> 10. dxc5
>
> I probably could have bit the bullet and retreated the N back to d2,
> but instead I open up the position on the Q side, to his advantage.
> Bad error no. 2 in a row!
Yeah, this move is really lousy. As a rule of thumb, you don't want to
break the tension in the center unless doing so gives you some
advantage.
> 10. ... dxc5
>
> I thought he should have played Nxc5 then after Nxc5 Qxc5 his Q is
> pointed at my e3 pawn and through that at my K.
In the absence of Nb3, I'd like Nxc5 better, as well. However, here that
move has a major drawback: it gives you the d4 square. Nxc4 Nbd4 fails
to tactics, but why give your knight the easy trip back into the game?
Maybe he didn't see the tactical refutation of Nxc4 Nbd4.
> 11. Qe2
>
> OK, this isn't so bad, I actually get back on track. I've still given
> black the advantage but it's certainly still manageable.
I think you should stop and take a look at why you're worse here. Your
pieces are cramped and stumbling over each other.
> 11... b5
>
> I had expected Rd8, but Fritz gives Nb6, renewing the fork threat and
> holding the advantage. The move actually played would have allowed me
> to equalize with c4! then black either gets an isolated pawn or a
> backward pawn and the q-side attack seems to vaporize.
I dunno. While you're counting isolated pawns, it looks like his pieces
are coming to life. Dynamic factors can be as important as static ones.
> 12. Nbd2
>
> Instead I played this very weak move, thinking to eliminate once and
> for all the pawn fork threat.... which was no longer really there.
> Black has an increasing advantage, it seems....
I certainly like black much more here, but the game is nowhere close to
over.
> 14. ... Bb7
>
> Certainly not bad, but c4 would have really given black a big Q side
> space advantage; now I can still play c4 myself....
So? Is a queenside space advantage really the deciding factor here? I'd
like to point out that he has a sizeable development advantage as well:
his whole army is mobilized. That strikes me as a much bigger factor.
> 13. b3 ?
>
> What was I thinking? It goes like this: "Oh boy oh boy I've played
> sooooo bad in this game now I have to do something to prove I can lose
> it...." Black now wins at least a pawn with a strong position to boot.
>
> 13. ... Nd5
>
> Right on the money. Hard to miss!
>
> 14. Rb1 ???
>
> So let's end the game reeeelly fast here!
>
> 14. ... Nxc3
>
> White loses at least the exchange and a pawn. That is not the same as
> losing the game, but I was so demoralized I just wanted to be anywhere
> but in the tournament room, so I resigned, maybe prematurely.
>
> 0-1
>
> Of course I played rather poorly to say the least. The 1700 guy,
> however, did not dazzle with his brilliance. In fact after 8 moves I
> had a good game going but DIDN"T BELIEVE IN IT! And that was my
> downfall.
I think you're mistaken about the position on move 8. yeah, sure, you've
got your stonewall, but a stonewall really isn't that scary. He's ALSO
got his ideal development going.
The game isn't won or lost yet, but I don't think you should be looking
at that position and saying, "Oh, I'm in control here. The game is just
starting."
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2006 23:25:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
> Thanks to all for some great advice about playing my own game and
> believing in myself based on actual results! I will post my last,
> losing game, not because it is an interesting game but because it *is*
> an instance of how to psych yourself out (negatively); hopefully
> someone else can look at the game and say, "I better not do that
> stuff!"
>
> 1. d4 Nf6
>
> A King's Indian guy.
>
> 2. e3
>
> I like the Stonewall, I've done mostly OK with it.
It's a very limiting opening that will not give you the necessary tools to
play the opening well. You'll need a very strong middlegame and endgame to
pull this off.
Still, any plan is better than none.
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2006 12:26:42
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
You didn't run your game. YOUR game, not the game you think you should
have, but the game you actually play.
You need to have a style of play that is all your own, and use that style to
dictate the terms of the game with your opponent. If you are tactical and
an openings wizard who likes to sacrifice, your games should reflect that,
while if you are good positionally and patient, with a stellar endgame, you
should steer the battle that way.
You were taken out of your game by fear of your opponent's rating and did
not do what you should have done, which was to just play chess the best way
you knew how while letting the results take care of themselves. You were
too worried about what your opponent could do to you and did not give
yourself permission to do things to him.
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Last month I played in a one-day event, a four-round Swiss with about
> 16 players. I had been away from competitive chess for many, many
> years, having played only 4 games in a period of decades, and those
> leading to a lowly 1000 rating. In this event I was easily the lowest
> rated player; other ratings ranged from about 1200 to 1800 in this
> section.
>
> I played the first round against a 1600 and won. I played the second
> round against an 1800 and drew, opting for a perpetual in a Q and P
> ending rather than reduce to a pure P ending and risk misevaluation
> against a much higher rated player (can you see what's coming
> already?). I played the third round against a 1300 and won a scrappy
> game where I didn't play so well but the other fellow made too many
> mistakes.
>
> That got me to the 4th round and playing at the first table with 2.5/3
> in clear 2nd place against the leader who had 3/3 and was rated 1700.
>
> Now, at that point.... I *knew* I was not good enough to be where I
> was. I *knew* I would lose because if I won, I would win the
> tournament, and I wasn't good enough.
>
> See the picture?
>
> Of course I lost, and very quickly, staying in an even game for 10
> moves and then making 3 bad moves in a row. But after all, I *knew* I
> should lose, so I had to prove it, right?
>
> I still won the class prize but that of course isn't the point. Any
> advice or suggested remedy for such an absurd defeatist attitude,
> before I play my next tournament?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2006 10:02:12
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> (...)
> See the picture?
>
> Of course I lost, and very quickly, staying in an even game for 10
> moves and then making 3 bad moves in a row. But after all, I *knew* I
> should lose, so I had to prove it, right?
>
> I still won the class prize but that of course isn't the point. Any
> advice or suggested remedy for such an absurd defeatist attitude,
> before I play my next tournament?
>
> Thanks in advance.
My advice, ... post the game!
AT
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2006 04:02:04
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Advice requested: analysis of approach / attitude!
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> I still won the class prize but that of course isn't the point. Any
> advice or suggested remedy for such an absurd defeatist attitude,
> before I play my next tournament?
I'm a big believer in the idea that confidence is born of demonstrated
ability.
Let's look at what you did this game. You beat a 1600, drew an 1800, and
lost to a 1700.
In other words, you put on the performance expected from a 1700-rated
player.
So start thinking of yourself as a 1700-rated player. You KNOW that 1000
next to your name doesn't mean anything ... it's decades old!
In your mind, right now, you're a 1700-rated player. Start thinking that
way until you see evidence to the contrary.
-Ron
|
|
