Monday, July 16, 2012

Game 41

Round 3 wasn't too pretty either.  I was paired with an 1810 player.  When the games began, my opponent was not there and I didn't have a clock (at least one w/ 5 second delay capability).  So I scrambled to borrow one and then got it ticking.

He showed up about 10 minutes later.

Then half way though the game, the power/lights went out for about 30 seconds.  That brought some excitement to the place.

So, I lost this game at about the same number of moves of that previous game, only in this game, I was able to last to just over 50 moves.  I did a bit better at using more of my clock ... had about 10 minutes left when I resigned.  He only used about 20 or 30 minutes on his clock.  I could tell he was bored.

I had the white pieces and tried the same sctick as last game.

I didn't play on Sunday, so I ended up going 1-2.

Closing thoughts on this tournament to come ...


  1. I think you fought much better in this game than in the previous one !

    One suggestion : before playing c4, it makes sense to develop your Knight to d2. This way, should Black take with dxc4, you can recapture with Nxc4, hitting his queen. And if he doesn't, well, you've developed a piece :-)

  2. Why fxg3 instead of hxg3? hxg3 is a far better pawn structure, and you're just asking for trouble along the a7-g1 diagonal after fxg3. Look at how weak the e3-pawn is...

    Laurent: Nd2 there just drops the d-pawn. However, that knight got stuck on b1 for an awfully long time (also leading to problems along a1-f6). I think c3 is probably the only move there, actually - it's a lost position after c4, Bf6.

    (Note: After hxg3, you can play dxc5, Nbd2, then c4 in that position, and you'll untangle pretty nicely I think.

  3. Jabari, Laurent, et al ... at the place I work, when we begin asking "why" to certain things that have been done (ie. safety incident, service outage, etc) and there are human factors involved, a common answer to the why question is: "deviating from correct practice is positively reinforced or tolerated." So - why did I take w/ f? Because I've done it before and usually wasn't "punished" for it. Also, I figured it's an easy way to get my rook out. Of course, all that was for nothing b/c I ended up losing that rook anyway.

    Also, when asking me why - when it comes to my chess games - the answer: "because I'm an idiot" usually applies too ... :-)

    My chess quest isn't so much about trying to attain perfection, or a GM title or even money. Rather, it's about becoming less of an idiot.

    With that said, I still greatly appreciate all of your advice - from everyone. That you're even taking the time to look at my games and leave a comment, makes me very appreciative!

    I hope I can internalize and learn a bit.

  4. @jabari : yes you're right, too much pressure on d4 to play Nbd2

    @rocky : making a "dubious" move doesn't mean at all that you're an idiot, especially if it's a positional mistake (rather than hanging a piece). It's usually the lack of experience or general chess knowledge that provokes these mistakes. You can get this expertise by analyzing with more experienced players. I've learnt a lot of chess this way :-)

  5. *laugh*

    As Laurent said, it's just a missing "piece of knowledge", nothing more. Learning those is how you get better. :)

    In that case, "capture toward the center" generally applies, unless you have an immediate and very strong threat down the f-file (which you don't here). "Maybe opening the rook up for later" isn't nearly a good enough reason :)

    (If you haven't read all of Heisman's stuff there, it's worth the time. I know it's called "Novice Nook", but there's a lot of good stuff for 1600-ishs as well.)