That certainly looks dangerous at first glance, but after something like Qh5 Kh7, who’s going to be getting more use out of that g file? Black has a pair of rooks ready to take it over, and white is two moves from getting a rook there at all…interesting stuff.

Why am I getting the feeling that one of the differences I’m going to notice moving to U2000 is the prevalence of the Exchange sac?

-Matt

That’s an interesting idea…also if after 5. Bxe3 black goes ahead and plays 5 … e6, the pawn on d4 isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, so that bishop on e3 really does look kind of out of place.

I’ll remember that for next time I have black against this…or I’ll go ahead and learn Cox’s 3 … e5 lines.

Next game to get posted will be last week’s defense of a closed Spanish vs a 1750. It didn’t go quite as well as this one

I agree about John Cox’s writing style; he’s probably my favorite chess author.

One maneuver worth remembering in positions like the one after 4.f3 is that if you’re going to give back the pawn anyway, it’s worth considering 4…e3. After 5.Bxe3 White would really like to move his pawn back to f2; on f3 it just blocks his knight and exposes his king.

dfan.org/blog/2009/07/04/mnemosyne/
dfan.org/blog/2009/09/11/mnemosyne-update/

In fact the article Blunderprone links to is what first inspired me to try out spaced repetition!

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/ff_wozniak

That said, I find looking at games and openings more interesting than just solving a lot of tactics…this may not be best for my level of chess in the long run, but it’s more fun for me.

Reading these definitely puts me in the mood to play chess again. I get the feeling I’d run into some difficulties on the openings,; while I’m familiar with the more common opening moves, I know pretty much nothing of the standard opening lines as such, and I find studying them pretty dry/dull unless it’s in the context of an actual game that I have a shot at understanding. (One of the reasons I enjoy reading these annotated games.)

I think these lines help demonstrate that the a6, b5 plan for black really doesn’t work in this opening if there’s nothing over there on the queen side to attack. Without a knight on c3 to be the target (and prevent white from moving the c pawn) this idea is much less effective. I need to study the lines where white plays c3 a little more, since this also came up in my game this past week. It always takes some time to get a feeling for what moves your real life opponents are likely to play in a given position. The books all cover the “best” lines, but I tend to find that there are certain moves that just look natural to people, and those are the ones that get played. I think c3 in this opening might be one of them.

I’m definitely making a note for myself to play in the U1900 section at next year’s BU Open. Hopefully I’ll be over 1600 by then so it won’t be a choice!

Playing in the bottom section is not fun for exactly the reasons you state, especially is you’re near the top of the section. If you can win all your games, then no problem. If you lose then you deal with sometimes having to play WAY down. I hate sounding like a ratings snob, but most of the time it just is boring to smash some player that one out-rates by 900 points. I often wonder if the few 2500+ players I’ve faced think the same thing about me. LOL

12. a4 axb4 13. axb5 bxc3 14. Qxc3 seems to leave white in a decent position: he loses his defensive pawn formation on b-c, but it breaks up white’s b-c pawn formation, which is more advanced; moving the queen leaves white’s e4 pawn under-guarded, but black’s c-pawn is similarly vulnerable… and white gets a pawn to b5. Does black have any better options vs. that line? 12. a4 bxa4 doesn’t look grand. 12. … Bc3 13. axb5 Bxb5 takes pressure off white’s e-pawn. 12. … d5 in hopes of getting a knight to d5 to support axb4 doesn’t seem like it would work in time.

Sometimes when we’re busy composing something in a picture, something unexpected occurs which adds another element to the photograph. (Kind of reminds me of what happens in some of my chess games, though with not so nice results.) Take a look at this photo I took. Sorry I’m HTML challenged an can’t figure out how to make a link.

http://www.facebook.com/pollychess?v=photos&sb=4#/photo.php?pid=2644356&id=748584495

I had been playing around with settings and doing different stuff during the sunset. I was playing around with various silhouettes against the sky and the water. When I took this picture I was concentrating on the two cyclists. It wasn’t until I looked at the picture afterwards that I noticed the dolphin that had popped up at that moment. The couple didn’t even notice it either. As I looked at the picture I started thinking, “too bad I centered the couple instead of having them off to the left”. Though if I had put them to the right I would have totally cut out the dolphin all together.

The irony of the picture is that when I was trying to photograph the dolphins during the day I ended out with lots pictures of fins, tails, or splashes. It’s hard to anticipate when and where they’re going to pop up next.

I had a few questions when I first stepped through the game, but in the process of going back to look at those positions to pose the questions, I’ve answered them all myself.

I guess I should point out here and should have pointed out in the analysis that on move 20, I spent quite a while thinking about whether I wanted to play Qg5 or Qf4. Qg5 was my first instinct, but then I didn’t like these Qd8 ideas so I settled on Qf4, which probably ruled Qg5 out in my mind on move 22, since if I was going to do it then, I might as well have done it before. That can be a terrible mental block sometimes (fearing to make a move because it will have made a prior move a waste of time) but here it didn’t seem to cost me.

…which I thought at first could work out interestingly for white, but now that I look harder, it’d probably continue 24 exf5 h6, threatening white’s queen, which becomes unpleasant.

Learn more about chess punctuation and notation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation_%28chess%29

The only things that page doesn’t list that are kind of confusing are the notation of + for check and # for mate…those are covered under the page about algebraic notation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation

I looked at 22 Qg5 for a bit. Certainly that followed by Ng4 looks a little uncomfortable for black (though maybe he just plays Ng8 and everything is fine) but I was worried about tricks on the queen in the confined spaces up there. I also figured that after the likely response of 22 … Qd8 that I’d be looking at retreating anyway since I can’t stay there and allow a queen trade which would lose the knight on h6. I’m thinking of something like:

22 Qg5 Qd8 23 some move (maybe Rg1 to protect the pawn in case of Nh5?), then black N moves somewhere and then white probably has to play Qd2 anyway….

Does that make any sense? I didn’t double check this analysis so I might be missing something…black might have a better move than 22 … Qd8 somewhere, since the Qg5/Ng4 idea is probably a paper tiger.

I’ve often read that people seem to be either chess or go people, and less frequently both, and to the extent that that is true, I seem to be more of a chess person. I’d certainly be open to playing some go at some point though.

I’ll have to think about your analysis when I can stare at a board (digital or otherwise) for an extended time without worrying my boss is about to happen by….

“43 Rg6+ doesn’t work any better, since black can refuse to permit the discovered attack on the a-pawn with 43 … Ke8.”

should be

“43 Rg7+ doesn’t work any better, since black can refuse to permit the discovered attack on the a-pawn with 43 … Ke8.”

Out of curiosity: do you enjoy Go, or Go-like games?

In the endgame, I wonder how 42 … Rb2, Ra2, or Rd2 would have worked out. I don’t know my pawn-advancement endgame well enough to suss offhand whether 42 … Rb2 43 Rg7+ Kc6 44 Rg6+ Kb7 is disastrous for black (since without those moves, the checks will permit 45 Rxa6, and 43 … Ke8 permits 44 Ra7, winning the a-pawn), but if it’s not terrible for black, it seems like white has no good options; both pawns are somewhat blocked and can be quickly threatened by black, and getting white’s King to c1 to threaten the rook at b1 would take long enough that black can set up a5, then either b4, or a4 followed by Rb3 depending on what white does with the rook.

If black moving a-wards with the king is bad, then perhaps 42 … Ra2, since then any Rg6 by white can be countered by Rxa3. 43 Rg6+ doesn’t work any better, since black can refuse to permit the discovered attack on the a-pawn with 43 … Ke8. (Again, might be bad for the pawn endgame, not sure.)

42 … Rd2 seems like it ought to force 43 Rg3, in which case 43 … Rd3 costs white one or the other pawn. If 43 Rg6, then … a5, and from there I get a bit muddy. 44 Ra6 a5 45 Rb6, perhaps? Or 44 Rb6 Rb2, maybe?

[I find myself putting words like 'perhaps' and 'maybe' after speculative moves, lest I accidentally imply that the final move in the sequence is ?-worthy. Heh.]

All of the above speculation is with 30+ minutes to ponder over this particular board configuration under no pressure, I should add.

In any event, “Why 42 … a5?” is a good question, and it’s probably a bad move. I knew I could hold off the d pawn so I figured my only chance to win was to convert the 2 on 1 (a-b vs a) advantage into a passed pawn of my own.

To be honest though, I was thinking draw at this point, but wanted to give my opponent one more chance to lose…. 44 Rxa5? would lose to b3, when after Rb5 b2 the pawn cannot be stopped due to the fact he can get his rook to the first rank with check.

I’m sure there were many head scratchers in this game, and you certainly shouldn’t assume I’m playing anything like the best moves in most cases. As you’ll see in the next game I post that I played last night, even people rated a fair bit higher than I am make plenty of tactical blunders.

Glad you enjoyed the game, and I’m glad to get questions…it makes me think more, and that can only be good. It also occurs to me that I should make a pgn file available for games I post so people can easily suck it down and play with it if they’re so inclined.

Oh, and as to your comments about the likelihood that I’d beat you in real life….most of my gamer friends who are not chess players still play maddeningly solid chess. I’m often frustrated by the fact that while I theoretically know something about this game I cannot consistently defeat certain of my non chess playing friends. The price for having intelligent compatriots, I suppose.

I’m curious: On the second game, why 42 … a5 ? (For my other “why [x]?” questions I’ve managed to work out the answers for myself – very satisfying – but I’m missing that one.)

I’m really glad you found the games interesting. I’m currently trying to figure out how to deal with moving off of my LJ account and deciding whether to crosspost and if so, whether to selectively not crosspost the chess stuff, since I worry it’ll be uninteresting to the majority of readers. My main purpose in posting the games is to give myself a motivation to do the writeup, rather than the idea that there are many folks who actually want to see it. At this point I play a game a week and my general plan is to get them all commented and posted, though possibly in batches.

I’ll get my LJ “what do you guys think I should do?” post up and you should feel free to comment there as well.

You have a nice chessblog here! I like visiting it!
I offering you a link exchange – if you accept it.

My chessblog:
Chessgambiter
http://www.chessgambiter.blogspot.com/
Welcome to visit!

Your site – – already listed on my blog as:
Chess sites I read…

Keep on the good work and looking forward for the link exchange on your site as well – if possible.

Thanks and regards,

Chessgambiter
Mail: chessbumbus@gmail.com

regards,

Borislav

I comment both about the London System in general and then the game specifically.

London Bridge is falling down:
The London system deliberately creates 2 major weaknesses in hopes for a flash in the pan rapid development and quick attack on the kingside. As soon as the Bishop goes to f4 the queen side is weakened ( Specifically a weak square is created on b2). The opening does tend to ignore the big gaping hole in the center at e4.
With the weaknesses of b2 and e4 in mind, Black can equalize rather quickly. Rizzatano’s suggestion of 3…c5 is accurate and in “How to win with the London” it also speaks of this variation as the strongest. The premise behind the c-pawn advance is to prepare for Qb6. Typically Qb6 and Nc6 go hand in hand. Don’t be too quick to pick up b2 though especially if White plays a move like Nc3 ( before playign teh pawn out). That knight has a strong counterattack on b5. Having your Knight deployed to c6 disspells most of that.
The Qb6 idea begins the Q_side attack and White really needs to respond with Qb3. Thus the need to respond to 3…c5 with 4. c3. Once the queens are in a face off you can push the c-pawn and put the question to the queen. If the exchange happens it to your favor since it will open up a rook file on the weak queen side.
Now, Bf5 then e6 are solid secondary plays once you get the Qb6 and Nc6 them working on the queen side. This creates pressure on e4. The rule of two weaknesses implies that you keep him busy with one, then the other and go back and forth.

So that’s it for the my general premise on the London. About your game: Deploying the bishop to f5 was a theme on one of the weak squares. Don’t worry about hemming it in. That Bishop is strong on b1-h7 diagonal as well as the a8-h1 diagonal if you were to develop it on b7.
With the above groundwork, do you see that 4…Qb6 or 5 … Qb6 could have been a much stronger move. You needn’t worry about deploying the f8 bishop at this point. Begin the Q-side attack and go after the two weaknesses agressively.

The Bxb8 is a little dubious. Gettign rid of that knight does soften your chances of doign a queenside attack as well as if Qb6 versus Qb3 and he excahnges on b6 the rook file is opened for nothing or loses a tempo rather.

8. Ne5 is the goal of the London. This is thematic to the beginning of what was once termed a Pilsbury Attack ( its worth looking it up in Chess base). The QGD complexes in the early days loved this position and H N Pillsbury wasa master of the attack. To the point it triggered the movement of teh hypermodern defenses with finachetto’d bishops etc. In the QGD, c4 has been played and keeps d5 in check. In the London, d5 is not in check at all and is merely playing on a wish and prayer that Black won’t catch up. At my level, Black was catching up all too often and my Pillsbury attack turned more into a pillsbury dough boy and flattened.
I could go on and on about your game but I will only touch on a couple more points. You see how keepign the pressure on e4 wasa good remedy? White had to dance around that and respond to your demands. Image now, if you were also going after b2?
Delaying castling until after the dust settle and a few more pices were off teh board was a good idea. Castling after white loses the intiative is a good rule of thumb.

Oveer all nice game. Note to self, don’t pull “my old freind” out of the hat when faced with Steve at a tournament.

-BP

nice to see you around. much to learn; much to share. many incredible persons.

warm regards, and welcome aboard, david k in seattle, aka DK or transformation.

This brings me to the topic of my next post, which I hope to make today. If the provisional pairings hold up I’m going to play Calvin Hori with the same colors as our last matchup. I’m really curious to see how much of our first game we repeat, and I guess I should have in mind the things I would do differently if he makes a lot of the same moves.

Still though, as you point out, chess is about trying to make the other player unhappy, to some extent, and I suppose that anyone who shows up to play chess is at some level prepared for being made unhappy, but I still don’t really enjoy making my friends feel bad…

At the start of this year I thought I would get 50 tournament games in, but now it’s looking iffy. By the end of this month I’ll have 20. If I get to the rest of the Tuesday night games this year and hit a couple of weekenders, maybe. I think 40 might be possible though….

It turns out weekend tournaments may not be my thing, but more on that in another post.

I’m not highly rating oriented, but as far as measures of chess performance go, it’s hard to avoid it. I like your goals better though: they’re reachable without help from my opponents

Thanks for the comments!

Better to set more general goals and let your rating take care of itself. Here are some ideas for goals:

. Learn how to play both sides of rook endings where the stronger side has only one pawn

. Study 20 master games involving IQPs

. Play 50 OTB tournament games this year

. Work hard at always assuring that you are making developing moves during the opening

I could keep going, but this is a good sampling. Chess expertise is a process, not an endpoint. No matter how much improve, there will still be opportunities to improve more. Therefore, I recommend setting goals which are focused on incremental improvement, not on reaching some arbitrary rating plateau.

Hope you find this helpful.

Steve

I just discovered your blog and I really enjoy it! I was wondering if you would be interested in posting some of your writings on http://www.Chess.com? We have a blogging platform over there. It could help increase your readership, and we would love to have the quality posts! Let me know what you think

Thanks!

Erik
http://www.Chess.com

Don’t fear anyone by rating! I’ve learned in my travels in 1600-1700 land that anyone up to 2000+ is beatable for me. Tactical errors abound at even the expert level.

-Matt

congrats on the new rating. to some extent you will play up to your internal expectations, so it’s okay to have a quiet confidence that you are truly 1600 strength. (but be realistic, of course!) if your rating were a stock i would invest, b/c you actually analyze and annotate your games. and you point out your errors and give yourself question marks when appropriate. great job, keep it up. keep playing tourn. games and keep annotating them. you will be 1700+ before you know it.

Then play the Leningrad (St. Petersburg?) Dutch. Kindermann’s book on it is great. The frst 20 pages or so just talks about ideas and typical tactical tricks.

http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=15&PID=1519

-Matt

You might consider the Baltic 1.d4,d5 2.c4 ( or whatever) and then wham! 2…Bf5.

It throws off people who haven’t seen it. It creates similar structures to the london “system” with colors reveresed. There is a nice little book out there ( I can lend you mine) and its easy to learn.

Incidentally i play the slav… but throw in teh baltic to mix it up once in a while.

-BP

Even if your ability may not be at 1600 yet, it is nice to know that on a good day you can beat someone who is. I’m stuck in class A, probably permanently, but I’m glad that on any given day I can beat an expert.

First you install Fritz (you obviously done that). Then you run the database cd/dvd and make it show it’s contents. You can now choose to either copy the contents to your hard drive (if so, look for the chessbase folder that was placed in your documents folder and copy it to the bases folder although you can copy it anywhere you want), or you can leave it on the disk and look for it’s contents using Fritz. Run Fritz, click file, open, open database (and now look for the contents of the drive you put the database cd/dvd in). The same procedure is required when you’ve copied the database contents to whatever folder. Just look the folder up with Fritz as explained. Let me know if it worked. Take care!

Btw, i’ll add you to my sidebar and feedreader so i can follow your posts. Feel free to add me to yours. Though i am currently kind of inactive

When your opponent ( in this case… a little girl ) has a good threat ( f2… classic) try to have this trigger the need to find a sharper response. 1.d4 doesn’t stand out… but it falls in the “best defence is a good offense” category. Which is sharper than the pure “defensive” move of Qe1.

We actually met at the club already. I did a poor job of introducing myself, but I was the random guy that asked you if you have a chess blog….I’ll say hi on the 28th and do a better job this time

Often I forget to re-publish the new pgn with the annotations, and I’m usually just tossing the games online right away so I can access them from elsewhere and show them to a couple of friends of mine and get some ideas.

I’ll look for you at the club. Welcome!

George Duval aka: Blunderprone.

Good luck!

-Matt Phelps
MCC TD

i’ve heard that if blood is rushing to the stomach for digestion, less is going to the brain.

something like deli sandwiches with sprite or 7up served me well during tournaments or during big exams.

go to the website and pictures… I am here:
http://www.metrowestchess.org/Community/Pictures/Players/WebFiles/Web_Players_Active/slides/Duval_George.html

Warning… viewing may case seizures.

Somehow I feel getting trashed by a 2000 over and over wouldn’t teach me very much….

If the rating difference is greater than 700 points, you can’t lose ratingpoints to those guys. No matter how often you lose. It’s comparable with a handicap in golf. You are compensated for the fact that he is better. If a “real” 1500 player plays against a “real” 1700 player a few hundred games, in the end they will have still have about 1500 and 1700 rating. The extra wins of the 1700 player over the 1500 are ratingwise compensated by his “handicap”, due to the used ratingsystem.

A lot of awful stuff happens in the world, but to be affected by it through the trivial conduit of a chess tournament is definitely odd.