Rules for Bishops (HTRYC 3rd)

Rule 1: If you have a bad Bishop, you must correct it in one of the following ways
1. Trade it for an enemy piece of equal or greater value
2. Make it good by getting your central pawns off its color
3. Make it active by getting it outside the pawn chain


Rule 2: Bishops are usually strongest in open positions


Rule 3: In an endgame, with passed pawns on both sides of the board, Bishops tend to beat out Knights because they utilize their greatest strength: its long-ranged abilities

Rules for Combinations (HTRYC 3rd)

"If these factors do not exist, then a combination cannot exist either.  At least one of these factors must be present if a combination is to work"

1. Open or weakened King.  Also includes Stalemated King
2. Undefended pieces (this does not include pawns)
3. Inadequately defended pieces

Only look for a combo when one or more of these appear.  If they do not, then don't look for a combo.

Silman's Thinking Technique (HTRYC 3rd)

1. Figure out the positive and negative imbalances for both sides.
2. Figure out the side of the board (K vs Q) you wish to play on.  You can only play where a favorable imbalance or the possibility of creating a favorable imbalance exists.
3. Don't calculate!  Instead, dream up various fantasy positions, i.e., the positions you would most like to achieve.
4. Once you find a fantasy position that makes you happy, you must figure out if you can reach it.  If you find that your choice was not possible to implement, you must create another dream position that is easier to achieve.
5. Only now do you look at the moves you wish to calculate (called candidate moves).  The candidate moves are all the moves that lead to our dream position.

Game 20

Game 20 was a win against silencehunter.  So a bit of background first.  I own the 3rd edition of Reassess Your Chess.  Then I heard all the great things about the 4th edition, so I bought it for my birthday several weeks ago.  But I felt guilty for having never read the 3rd edition.  Therefore I decided to rapidly go through the 3rd edition before diving into the 4th.

I'm still working my way through the 3rd edition, but sis advice about creating a plan seemed has stuck with me; especially the part where he says you look for your "dream position"  So in today's game, when I came to a point where I didn't really know what to do (up to that point, I was simply developing and defending my pieces) I started thinking about a dream position based on his weak pieces and squares.  I was fully expecting the plan to be foiled eventually.  But it wasn't.

After he moved 13. Ne5, I envisioned my knight posted at h4 (via h5, g7 and f5).  Then, somehow my Q would be posted at g5 bearing down on g2.  Then, if my e pawn could dislodge his d-pawn allowing my d-pawn to strike at his knight, my bishop would simultaneously be attacking g2.  This was the thought I had.

I could have been foiled fairly quickly after I played 13...Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Nh5.  At this point, I was expecting him to play 15. Bxg5, but he didn't.  He played 15. Bxg7 and then I responded 15...Nxg7.  I proceeded with the plan.  He started aiming (doubling rooks) for my remaining bishop.  But I continued with my plan by getting the knight and queen where I wanted them.  His attack on my bishop succeeded, so my bishop was now out of the plan.  I was able to get some counter play by checking his king with my knight (I need Fritz to analyze this part of the game - there might have been a forcing line in there somewhere), but he was able to pull back his rook and queen  .... now his king was fully defended and he was up two pawns.

Now he had two pawns storming down the side with only my rook standing in the way.  My plan wasn't going too well.  But my knight and queen were still in play and his queen and rook were tied up defending his king - this left my rook free to roam.

Then he played 35. Nc3 and I quickly pinned his knight with my rook.  Then he played 36. Kd2 to defend his knight.  I checked him with my knight and then my queen.  He had one move: e4, which would win me a pawn back and put him at more danger.  All other moves were losing, but I had a feeling he'd play Kd1?  He was under a bit of time pressure.  He moved 38. Kd1 and I forked his king and queen with Nxd3.  He resigned.

It was a thrilling game and helped reinforce what I've read thus far from RYC 3rd edition.

Game 3 is one week from today.

Game 19

Game 1 of 4 with silencehunter was a draw (link here).  He had me at one point, and I was holding on for dear life.  He was chasing down two isolated pawns.  He was about to take the 2nd isolated pawn, but did not - both to my surprise and delight.  I was able to then able to capture his bishop, but his two pawns and a rook flew down the side of the board.  If it were not for my rook and bishop, I would have lost the game.  It ended in a draw by repetition.

Game 18

stevelco put the smack down on me again and won the series 3-1.  Except for his blunder in game 1, he would have cleaned my clock!

I screwed up royally on 18...a8?? leaving my knight and rook forked.  I was looking at 18...b8, but I was worried about 19. Nb5 ... but I overlooked that in response to that move, I could have played 20...Ra8 and maybe the position is still equal.  Gotta do that blunder check ... can't ever forget it.

I was chatting with Steve after the game and I said to him "you know ... "they" say tactics are what win and lose games ... and i try to work on them ... but when you're in a 3-4 hour game and your at the end, it gets tougher"

And this is what happened in this game ... I just plain got sloppy toward the end ... I still had 20 mins on my clock.

Oh well ... the thought occurred to me after the game that maybe I need to push myself a bit more on my daily tactical study - to push the mental limits - get exhausted a bit (with more tactics) and then train through the mental exhaustion to try to replicate keeping on guard toward the end of the game.

The next 4 game 75/15 series begins Sunday morning with silencehunter ... someone a bit more in my rating range.

Minimizing Misses on 1600+ Rated Tactics

Over the last 3 months or so, my blitz rating on ChessTempo has varied from 1660 on up to 1700.  Over the last couple of weeks, it's been hovering steadily in the 1680s and 1690s, with brief excursions into the 1700s.

I started to notice, even back in December, that as soon as I get into the 1700s, I drop back down to the 1680s and 90s.  So I started tracking how many sub-1600 rated problems the server would dish to me each session.  When I'm in the 1680s and 90's, about 50% of the problems are rated below 1600.  As soon as I get into the upper 1690s and 1700's the number of sub-1600 rated problems goes down to about 25%.

This all makes sense ... as your rating goes up, the server dishes more "tougher problems" and conversely as your rating sinks, the server dishes out more "easier problems"

So my dilemma is focusing on minimizing misses of the 1600+ rated problems.  What's going on is that as the number of sub-1600 rated problems decreases, the vacuum is filled with 1600+ problems.

I've also noticed that on those "additional" 1600+ problems that I end up missing, I miss because I think I see the answer fairly quickly, but I don't, so I end up moving pre-maturely (more quickly) instead of taking extra time for further analysis.

So I downloaded my history and did some cursory analysis.

Looking at problems from this year that I missed and that are rated greater than 1600 (215 total):
106 of them I ended up taking longer than the average solve time (by a whole minute).
109 of them I ended up taking less time than the average solve time.

So half of those misses on the 1600+ rated problems were due to moving too quickly.

Of those 109, the average solved time is about 45 seconds.
Of those 109, on average, I moved 20 seconds "too soon"

My conclusion: as I find my rating hovering in the 1690s, take a minimum of 65 seconds before I move, unless the solution is absolutely clear.

This analysis wasn't too serious, but I need to start playing with the data and thinking about these things now that I can download my entire history! :-)

Game 17

Game 17 was another 60/15 game.  The quality of the last two games is not the highest.  In fact, my latest opponent must have thought (s)he accepted a blitz game.  I received two chats from *them*

1. Today is
2. the game is for today

Both of these IMs were after I took an excruciatingly 90 second think.  After blundering on the 10th move, *they* played a few more moves and resigned.

The quality should begin improving as I have a chance to even up the odds against stevelco.  He's up 2-1 on me and we should be playing this Friday night.

Also, I just signed up for another 75/15 match with silencehunter beginning this Sunday morning.

Game 16

Game 16 was not pretty, but still an interesting win.

70% on ChessTempo (Blitz)

Yesterday, I reached the 70% accuracy mark for blitz problems.
That is 18,930 problems with 5679 missed.
Rating at the time I crossed the 70% threshold was 1689.3.
The march to 20,000 problems continues.

Let's Play

To all bloggers and readers ...

From March 11 to March 14, my evenings are wide open.  I'd love to have some long games scheduled each night.

Let me know if you want to play a G/60, G/75, G/90 or longer on any of those days.

I will be available to play from 16:00 to 20:00 FICS time.

Games 14 & 15

Games 2 and 3 to stevelco were defeats.  Honestly, I should have lost the first game too.  Steve is a really good player.  I was proud of myself for hanging with him the first two games, but game three was different.

I stunk; big time.  I hate making excuses, but I do feel I need to document.

There are days when I really feel like playing and I have lots of energy.  Then there are days where there is nothing there ... it's just "blah".  Other days, I can at least manage to muster up some desire.  Last night ... and pretty much the whole week for that matter was a blend of mustering and just plain "blah".  You can't deny the fact that other life events affect your chess play.

Also - there are losses where I feel good about ... I know I did my best; I fought hard and thought deep and well.  Then there are losses like last night where there was no heart; I was a complete woodpusher.

So, as opposed to trying to think about how I can minimize my failures in thinking or calculating, I need to think of a way to rouse up the fight in me when there is no fight.  How can I, on a snap of the fingers, turn into a calculating, killer-move-seeking monster?  Days like yesterday; weeks like this past week ... they will come again.  What can I do to prepare for them?  How can I overcome them?  That's what's on my mind.

Here are the games as captured from surveybot.

Game 2
Game 3

King's Gambit by Paul Hoffman

King's Gambit by Paul Hoffman was the best narrative chess book I've read.  This book has tons of interesting stories about the game and the people who play it.  From stories about how GMs try to prepare for games, to hustlers to crazy dictators - it has it all.

In a previous post, I copied a few excerpts about some violent antics by chess players ... these were typical stories from the book.

He also interjects his own story about he and his father - which for long stretches at a time, has nothing to do with chess, but nonetheless is a good read.

The one thing that struck me over and over again as I read, was how easily GMs seemingly blundered.  There were at least half a dozen paragraphs where a GM was explaining the game ... he was ahead, the game was equal, but he made a strong move and would have sealed the win, except for an oversight or an outright blunder.  I kept reading these passages over and over again and I couldn't help but think that blundering is just a part of chess.  Professionals seemingly blunder on a regular basis!  In fact, reading these passages seemed to void up my own resolve to keep at it.  If these exceptional players screw up, then I shouldn't feel so bad about my shortcomings.  Rather, I  just need to keep at it - keep chugging along - to work at minimizing my own screw-ups.  Everyone  messes up.

Anyway - a great book - highly recommended.

Other Reviews of the Book


Review at ChessBase
Buy the book and read reviews at Amazon
Review at NYTimes
Review at ChessVille
Review at USCF

Game 13 of 52

About a week and a half ago, I played a former 45/45 Team League team mate.  We've scheduled a 4 game series of 75/15 games over the next two months.

It was a pretty even game until the end.  He had the advantage and was going to win, but made a bad move and subsequently resigned.

I've spent the last week or so reviewing the game.  I gave a few positions to Fritz and those are annotated below as well.

Game 2 is coming up.

Happy V-Day

In honor of Valentine's Day, I'd like to share a passage from a book I'm reading.  Chess is about passion and desire.  And so when we lose, our emotions tend to spill over.  Sometimes our love for the game turns to violence.

In Paul Hoffman's book The King's Gambit, he mentions some interesting tid-bits about other's desire for the game.

"Defeat in chess is always painful.  William the Conqueror reportedly smashed a chessboard over the Prince of France.  Pascal Charbonneau, the champion of Canada and my closest friend in the chess world, told me how a childhood contemporary broke all the furniture in a hotel room at a tournament and retired from chess.  The Spanish writer Fernando Arrabal once signaled his resignation with a theatricality that surpassed Rossolimo's.  He grabbed his king, climbed up on the chess table, extended his arm horizontally, and dropped the king so that it bombed the board.

"When I was a spectator in 2003 at the annual chess tournament at Foxwoods Casino, where 630 players were battling for a price fund of $93,500, I was nearly struck by a chess clock that an irate loser hurled in my direction.  I'm sure I wasn't the intended target, but I had to duck, and the clock smashed into the wall behind my head and broke into pieces.

"When a player get violent, his wrath is often directed not at spectators or his opponent but at himself.  One contemporary Russian grandmaster has been known to pick up the pointiest chess piece, usually the bishop or knight with a particularly jagged mane, and stab his own head until it bleeds.  Then he rushes out of the tournament hall only to return for the next round as if nothing untoward has happened.  At one event, this grandmaster was among the tournament leaders who were playing on an elevated stage.  When he lost a key game, he bloodied his face and then, in an extreme masochistic flourish, dove off the three-foot high stage, belly-flopping onto the hard floor."

Happy Distraction = Good Ideas, Part 2

see link below about this book

I read an article yesterday in Chess Life; it's called Still Going Strong: Yuri Averbakh.

What caught my attention were a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article.

"As a professional, Averbakh tried methodically to improve his game by exercising his subconscious mind, and intuition.  'It is very important to raise consciousness when you are working in chess,' he explains."

He then talks about how a relative of his wife told him to "examine Stanislavski's oeuvre" - whatever that means (more info at wikipedia?).  He doesn't expound on what the system does, but in the next paragraph, it seems to allude to the 'happy distraction' idea.

He says, "For instance I was working on some ideas in endings ... I had one problem to solve and I couldn't find the solution.  And when I was not working on this ... I was away somewhere, not over the chessboard, but immediately I found the solution, because my mind was working."

The article continues, "The gap between a strong grandmaster and a world championship candidate is partly a difference in the ability to attain peak performance during the game.  Averbakh thinks this is about more than just study of positions, but it lies in the subconscious churning away while the player is, for instance, walking in a park or sitting in the theater watching a performance."

There is much more in the article and it is a really good read, but those few points really stood out while I was reading it.

The previous article to this one was about a new book out that is about Yuri (link here).

Happy Distraction = Good Ideas

Since having read How We Decide, I've been checking out Jonah's blog over at Wired.  Last week he posted "How Do We Identify Good Ideas?"

I think his post is highly applicable to chess.  Josh Waitzkin also discussed a similar idea in his book Art of Learning.

In a nutshell ... if you need new ideas (creativity), do some brainstorming and then distract yourself for a bit before returning to the problem at hand.  In chess-speak, when confronted with a critical problem or position, identify your candidate moves.  Once you think you have the one you need, walk away and distract yourself - preferably by doing something that makes you happy.  Then come back to the problem and reassess.

The distraction part allows your subconscious to take over and make connections.  And when you let your subconscious work on the problem a bit, your chances of getting a better result go up.

Chess Rage (on the iPad)

source link (via Reddit)

Ralph's Bigfoot Note

If you've been to Ralph's Lost in Chessland blog, have you ever scrolled all the way down?  At the bottom of his blog, he has a footnote ... or rather a Bigfoot Note.

His Bigfoot Note is a summary of his training plan and things he needs to focus on.  I think this is a great idea!

Annotated Game Collections

Another aspect of my chess study that I really need to ramp up is reviewing games by GMs and other top-notch players.

Heisman, in his February 2011 Novice Nook column, provides some insight for choosing books of game collections to study.  I'd like to review Logical Chess Move by Move again and then move on to other books ... specifically the ones he recommends.