I still cant believe it.. hey guys, hey guys.. check this out!!

Now, let me just say I totally understand his position. And there are no hard feelings on my part. However, I think blunders are part of the game. I've blundered my fair share and took it in the gut like man.. rawr!



bishopspectre: oops...
bishopspectre: that was a mistake because i play on a real board with this....
mantakaya: a mysterious queen maneuver
bishopspectre: yeah, i'm sure you won't accept a takeback. especially since you were losing.
mantakaya: i did a mistake earlier.. didnt ask for takeback
bishopspectre: yeah, but that was ridiculous
bishopspectre: and yeah, knew you wouldn't
bishopspectre: don't expect it on FICS. it's free...you know the kinda people we get
mantakaya: would you be satisfied if i allowed a takeback?
mantakaya: it is not allowed anywhere
bishopspectre: blundering a queen? oh yes
bishopspectre: well, if you feel cool winning like this.
mantakaya: sure.. blunders are part of the game
bishopspectre: well i don't look at the screen, i look at my board
bishopspectre: whatever
(Draw offer sent, accepted)
bishopspectre: *sigh* thanks...i guess

The game itself

First:

Our game

The critical position


What I was most afraid of was that after Nfxd5 then Qh5 with fantastic pressure. In the end, after everything, the game went into an endgame which I felt I should win if I just carefully and avoided forks.

Oh, is a queen vs knight ending a draw or a win?

--

(fyi - someone aborted a game with me because he said i was too slow. Go figure.)

The bishop being placed on d3 was a very deliberate attempt to setup the classical bishop sacrifice.

--------------------


I want my chess to have some logic. To have some strategy, to have some prophylaxis, to have something.. else.

Due to work I haven't had the time to play lately and when I did, this monstrosity happened.. Really.. 5 moves.. really!?

:sigh:

1. First - The game itself

2. The result

Auto-flagging.
{Game 383 (mantakaya vs. Andrewer) Andrewer forfeits on time} 1-0
Standard rating adjustment: 1697 --> 1706
Standard rank: 1321/5058 (up 71)
Standard hrank: 1286/5017 (up 71)
You have achieved your best active rating so far.

3. The final position

Here is a game I annotated. I wrote what I was thinking during the game and the variations that I was able to comprehend. You'll be very surprised I think just how much variation I was considering in a game. It was really.. skimpy to say the least.

The full game is here

1. e4 d6
2. Nf3 Nf6

I'm having trouble meeting d4 with d5. I always seem to get a cramped game and it is not uncommon that the games ends with my light square bishop not moving from its spot.

Plus the fact that I have in my possession - "Starting Out: The Pirc/Modern". The last chess book I bought before I went into my hiatus.

So now I'm starting to use this opening against both e4 and d4. I must say that the character of the games I get is very different from what I'm used to. The black position seems compressed.There are no sudden skirmishes and you have to wait for your chances.

On the other hand, learning all about pawn breaks and how to counter a pawn center with pieces is also something new. It could only improve my chess if I learn these things.

3. e5 Nfd7

I seriously considered Ng4 here. It didn't appeal to me. It seems that he will take the d6 pawn anyway so attacking with the Knight seems just a waste. Although I at least had another 'candidate' move. Often I would only have one - the seemingly obvious move. So finding an alternative is a happy occasion for me.

4. exd6 cxd6
5. Bc4 g6

He is targeting the vulnerable f7. The threat that I saw was Ng5. I can counter that with e6. No problem at this point.

But I also considered Qc7 attacking the bishop. But if the bishop moves to say - b3 then the idea behind Qc7 is lost. Although Qc7 is the normal home for the queen. But I feel that it is needed in the king side.

6. d3 Bg7

How could I miss d3. Defending his bishop and opening the diagonal for the other one. I'm sure glad I didn't do Qc7

7. Ng5 O-O

I considered d6 here. But I was afraid of the sacrificial idea
- 8. Bxd6 fxd6
- 9. Nxd6 - Queen moves
- 10. Nxg7

But truth to tell, I just saw this move now. I didn't saw it during the game :( - I just felt it was
dangerous so I opted to castle instead. Besides, I had a defensive resource up my sleeve which I played the next move.

8. Qf3 Ne5

Ha! I was expecting something like this. Now Ne5 stops him dead cold.

9. Qf4 Nxc4
10. Qxc4 Nc6
11. O-O h6

I don't want that blasted horse perched over my head

12. Nf3 Be6

I wanted to kick the queen out while developing

13. Qh4 g5

GASP!! I didn't see this. Now I'm under pressure - h5 will be lost. Then his knight will come back to g5. Just terrible. The question now is - do I have to save it? The answer is - I felt i must. Otherwise it would have been the height of inconsistency for me to have played g5.

And he wouldn't have the cojones to sac a piece for two pawns and the attack would he?

14. Bxg5 hxg5

He did :(

Mate in h7 is threatened. I admit that I didn't see that coming. I was analyzing what will happen if he sacs the knight. I didn't see any mating threats with queen and bishop so I just played g5. But it turned out he sac'ed the bishop. Now there is a threat of mate.

15. Nxg5 Bf5

One of the things to look for when sacrificing is the presence of the opponents pieces. If there are two or three that can get in the vicinity and participate in the defense then it is usually not a bright idea to do unclear sacrifices.

In this case I had two bishops. A tough nut to crack.

16. g4 Bg6
17. f4 f5

I cant move f5. He will fork, I saw this much. But then looking around I saw I have a check. So I gain valuable tempo. I can do f5 after all. I can't find any other move apart from this. Some other move like Qa5 to do Qd4+ doesn't seem to do anything at all.

18. Ne6 Qb6

The expected fork. The expected check.

19. Kh1 Rf6
20. gxf5 Qa5

The critical position. I found here a simple trap involving Qd5+ and Rg6+ (I need to check with the queen first otherwise him doing Qxe7 is quiet worrying)

In here he could have maybe got material balance like this -
- 21. fxg6 Qd5+
- 22. Kg8 Rxg6+
- 23. Nf5

If he did this, I was intending to sac the exchange just to remove that pesky beast.

21. Nxg7 Kxg7

Nxg7 loses. He just didn't consider why I did Qa5 I think. Judging from how fast he made this
move I didn't think it registered on his consciousness at all.

It is all over now. The rest is of no interest.

22. fxg6 Qd5 23. Kg1 Rxg6 24. Kf2 Qg2 25. Ke1 Re6 26. Kd1 Qxf1 27. Kd2 Re2 28. Kc3 Qe1 29. Qxe1 Rxe1 30. Kd2 Rh1 31. a4 Rxh2 32. Kc3 Rc8 33. Kb3 Nd4 34. Kb4 Nxc2 0-1 {White resigns}

--------------------------------------------------

I really have to get better at looking for trouble. I didn't foresee the reasonable replies three times. Reasonable is the keyword here. It would be one thing if it was some deeply laid trap, but its quite another to be blind to moves that in hindsight, I would have done too.

Although me finding another candidate move no matter how simple is good, and there are some variations that I did see.

Wonder how much analysis other players do OTB. Do they really have reems of variation floating in their head crafty-style?

Hey, check this out:




And - Can't wait for my book to arrive. I ordered 'My System', Fishers 'My 60 greatest games', 'The art of sacrifice' and 'Chess cafe tactics book'.. I can fell my ELO expanding already from thinking about all the learning I'm about to receive.. - Mwahahahaha!

Oh, and I saw CelticDeath at FICS btw.. Hat tip to CD.. ;)

Full queen up - Yuck!!!


And yet, I then turn around and defeat two 1800 players in fine sacrificial style.

Game A - Bishop sacrifice - I blundered twice and yet a win.



Game B - Kingside attack - A nice calculated attack. I foresaw most of the lines.


As Nimzo said - "if chess is like a race how foolish it is to stop and rub your nose while in the middle of it."

I've previously resisted on buying this book. After all, I have tons of books already on the middlegame. Including what I think is the best of them all - "Simple Chess" by Michael Stean. I mean, what can someone who have long ago turned into dust teach me that more modern authors could not?

But lately, I felt as if I needed something new. To understand positional chess so to speak.

There have been times when I needed to formulate a plan. All is well if the game proceeds along some lines I know well.. e.g. The opponent king is stuck in the center - so open lines now!, etc..

But there are some quiet positions. Positions where I need to improve slowly and I, I just dont know what to do. (But didnt I just said I would'nt study until I master my thinking process? Err.. I might have been too hasty on that account.)

Fortunately, I recently I got a PDF copy of 'My system' and I couldn't stop laughing. Its a very funny book.
The price is worth it just for the style of writing alone. If the man is to be believed, why, he practically invented chess :)

The only real thing I don't like is that people "re-translates" it because it is "too hard" to understand.

It is a very bad thing to do I think. How would you like it if someone put words into your mouth because they couldn't understand what your talking about?

I'm aware the printers of the book try to reach a mass audience, but poor Mr. Nimzo must be rolling on his grave right now.

I mean, would you try to dumb down Shakespeare? Or if you for example, saw a work of art like Picasso's "Jacqueline a Mantille Sur Fond Rouge" would you perhaps add a little bit of color here, a red dash in there, a tiny pink blot somewhere so people can "understand" it better?

Distasteful.

Anyway I'm off to search for the edition as close to the original as possible.

-cheers-

First: The game.

One of those things that I've always wanted to do.


Although -

The game itself was a procession of botched chances and missed opportunities. I did manage to win in the end, but it was really - how shall I say it.. 'not solid'.. it required the assistance of my opponent to get the win.

I could've kicked myself.. I failed to find some strong moves.. moves that could have ended it earlier and would have made the win that much more satisfying.. the blindness again.. it rears its ugly head.

But the good thing is I am seeing the moves I've missed and who knows, maybe next time my attacking technique would be stronger..

I leave you now with a quote on what I think is whats my chess looks like (not that I compare myself with such a strong GM. but its the idea that matters)

“No matter how much we have tried to convince Spielmann of the impossibility of surviving on nothing more than developing and attacking moves (and I have tried hardest of all, through my books and our conversations) still he tries, almost as a matter of principle, to avoid the necessity of defence!”

Here is a game I played yesterday in which I attempted to apply the thinking process

Some thoughts:

1. Constant checking, looking around, and calculating is tiring



So tired..

2. In search for a consistent man

And it was a critical juncture of the game too. But I started to slip into a kind of haze and started to miss things. Throwing the game to chance so to speak.

There were a lot of things I missed in here.. seeing them only after I had made several more moves. Of course I was fortunate that my opponent didn't see them too. But I have a feeling that a stronger opponent, say someone in the 1800's wouldn't miss such things.

I won but I really have to play better than this. It is not the same as losing, not quite but close.

But I have an idea - can this actually be a weapon? Can I inflict positions requiring massive calculation on someone hoping they'll crack and start to miss things? This is assuming of course that my own stamina is up to the task.

3. But I do indeed see more

Comparatively, I saw more threats and it did seem as if I prevented a lot of things from happening. For example, the move 11.Bg2 was prophylactic in nature. h3 was weakness that he could attack. Perhaps not immediately but in a move or two, it could have happened.

4. But I didn't see enough

Or as I've said, I saw too late. It was fortunate that my opponent didn't play Nd3, and in combination with maneuvering his other Knight. e.g. Nd7-Ne5 or maybe Nd7-Nc5 my rooks would have been prevented from moving into the D or F file and he would have a nicely posted knight in there. It might have been temporary but in the interim it would have posed me some problems.

Did I see this? Only when it was too late for by then my rook have occupied the files.

Seeing too late is bad enough but much worse is...

5. Blindness

There are particular moves I don't see, a form of 'blindness' I seem to possess.

For example in the diagram below (White to move)

The correct answer was Ng5. But I looked and I looked an all I can come up with is Nd2. Now why is it that I can see Nd2 but the possibility of Ng5 escaped me? I didn't even consider it. It was as if the move was non-existing. A totally alien concept that it didn't event register though I must have looked at this position for close to ten minutes. This move and moves like this seems to reside on a NULL zone of my mind.

Well, at least there was an improvement. Here's to hoping that constant practice will enable me to lengthen the time I can concentrate on the board. Perhaps if I can do an hour of uninterrupted thought, I can be satisfied.

Chess is difficult...