< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 42 OF 42 ·
|Feb-14-14|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> Tricky puzzle today even if one saw the piece trap theme|
|Feb-15-14|| ||Patriot: Hi <morf>! Sorry I haven't responded sooner. It's been a long week and I've felt very tired all week, hardly able to solve any problems on here.|
<I'm wondering if I have an affinity or predeliction (or bias) for a specific theme that interferes with me seeing the best move? Have you heard of that situation before?> Oh yes--I run into this sometimes when doing problems on CTS. Some patterns seem more dominant than other's. But tactics practice is supposed to guide us, not necessarily tell if it really works. That's where calculation steps in and assures us it does or does not.
Looking back at the position, it looks as though you decided to go deep before looking wide to see if there was something better. Could it be that you were afraid to mentally "sacrifice" the queen? That's another problem of mine.
|Feb-16-14|| ||morfishine: Good morning <Patriot> Thanks for the reply! Of course, just not following the script as you say, looking deep without looking for something better first.|
<Could it be that you were afraid to mentally "sacrifice" the queen? That's another problem of mine.> Now thats interesting, I never considered this idea (or obstacle). For now, I'll try to keep a more open mind, take the blinders off, etc.
|Feb-16-14|| ||Patriot: <morf> Nice job on the Sunday puzzle! I simply didn't see the superior Qe4+ in several lines. I believe this is a board vision problem--not seeing all meaningful options. It could be I thought the pawn was still sitting on e4. But I was convinced Nd5 was the only way for white to fight for a win (or not lose).|
There are no real sacrifices if you're just thinking about them, except for the time investment. Dan recommends looking for moves that may have a higher reward than risk.
|Feb-16-14|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> Thanks a lot! I saw this one clearer than usual, but thought Black's attempt was pretty wily, being able to get his pawns on <c6> & <d5>|
Clearly, 19...Rf8 was the best try, but hats off to both players, especially the finish by White, winning with the windmill! I definitely didn't see that!
I'm pleased to have at least realized the importance of the b1-h7 diagonal, and worked out a defense based on <Bf7>, (which loses in the long run anyways)
BTW: Nice job yourself! Sorry, again I posted early and took off for errands and what not, and didn't read your post til later in the afternoon. Your intuition shows through here, besides your thoroughness
|Feb-17-14|| ||Patriot: <morf> I'm curious--Whenever you feel as though everything is clearer, do you feel like you have a better grasp of the initial position? For example, you have a feel for what is happening on the entire board, such as a bishop x-raying through pieces to h1, doubled rooks and more control over a certain file, etc. My theory is this initial awareness helps everything else to fall in place. Think of it like a "first impression". And I believe this board awareness helps in short-term calculation, which I think is far more important than long-term calculation. It is this we need to be very fast at, because it helps us find the scent of the best candidates (sort of like a bloodhound).|
I found 19...Rf8 but didn't see the best follow-up. But then I really didn't try to do this because clearly 20.Qxf8 isn't the only option. I decided to try this option just to see what simplification gives, and although it didn't look better for white I felt I had seen enough to decide 19.Nd5 was likely best. That is, there was no further "build-up" where white could try to improve his position so it's "now or never"--19.Nd5 is a fighting chance. That may not be the best logic, because sometimes it's better to just hang on being slightly down material.
|Feb-17-14|| ||morfishine: Good Evening <Patriot>! Your comment here was made almost exactly at the same time I was pondering visualization: <Whenever you feel as though everything is clearer, do you feel like you have a better grasp of the initial position?> Literally, yes. In that example, the White square diagonal just stuck out like a sore thumb (maybe because White already controlled the dark square diagonal from e5-h8). |
I had been convinced that if one does not practice/train continually (daily) their visualization can become subject to biorhythms. There are off days and very definite "on days". But I'm starting to back-off on that thought, thinking that perhaps one can become entrenched in one's own "set" or "archived" patterns, or pattern recognition, so on those days we think "Wow, I was really seeing the board great today", Its nothing more than seeing a familiar pattern of pieces and pawns that we are comfortable with. Sure, biorhythms can have an impact. I'm a big believer those type things (cycles, alternative medicine, etc.).
While I haven't completely dismissed the idea of biorhythms, I think that achieving and maintaining a certain level requires continual work and effort, with no lapses. There is no other way.
As for your choice 19.Nd5, I think its the best play and your intuition paid off here. Logic has its place, but at some point in a chess decision, logic must be put aside
|Feb-18-14|| ||Patriot: Good morning <morf>! That is interesting you think so as well about initial understanding of the position and how that relates to easier analysis. It makes sense that would contribute greatly to quick, short term analysis. When feeling tired, I noticed that I don't look around the board as much when doing tactics and this hurts board vision. This is probably true during a game as well.|
I totally agree with you about "on" and "off" days and biorhythms. <While I haven't completely dismissed the idea of biorhythms, I think that achieving and maintaining a certain level requires continual work and effort, with no lapses.> True! Maybe during an "off" day, someone like Carlsen might play like a 2500 or 2600. This means if we want to play consistently at least as well at a certain rating level, then we need to strive to be 200-300 points above that!
<As for your choice 19.Nd5, I think its the best play and your intuition paid off here. Logic has its place, but at some point in a chess decision, logic must be put aside> No matter how hard we try, there is only so much we can calculate! Look at <agb2002>'s analysis. He does a very good job and is very thorough but even then there are still missing candidates. It's just not humanly possible to calculate everything like a computer. And when we see these games, it's easy to get the impression the GM saw everything even though they probably figured out the rest as the game was played! So yes, intuition is often the decider.
In Dan's "The Improving Chess Thinker" (which a position from my own game is featured--not to brag...lol) he showed a lot of analysis made by a strong player and because they went through a lot of calculation but missed something important, he said something like "This shows there isn't much difference between good and bad analysis." I read this as, you can do your best but if you miss just one critical candidate then your analysis is no better than someone who was not very thorough at all.
|Feb-18-14|| ||morfishine: Hello <Patriot>! One would be mistaken to put too much weight on biorhythms as it relates to chess. First, biorhythms effects all the senses while visualization is centered on one sense: sight. Secondly, while peak biorhythm days are great and bottom biorhythm days are when one feels listless and unmotivated, there are the middle or normal days as the biorhythm curve is cycling between peaks and valleys. During this time one feels neither exceptionally great nor bad, just normal and one can certainly play great chess during this time too. |
Also complicating the equation is there are three biorhythm models that run concurrently but not in synchronization: physical (23-days), emotional (28-days) and intellectual (33-days): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biorhy...
If you are playing a series of games against a same-level opponent and see the board with perfect clarity in some games (but not others) and in the end you are "breaking even", then Biorhythms probably haven't helped you too much and are probably moderate at that time (or the same as your opponent!).
However, if you are winning more games, then Biorhythms could be in your favor at that time (or your opponent's are lower than yours!).
(Of course, if you are losing more, your Biorhythms could very well be down or at least worst than your opponent. Great players persevere through this time and "grind out" victories despite their poor overall feeling. Chess knowledge, pattern-recognition, staying within familiar lines and intuition are good weapons to center on when one's Biorhythms are down)
I'm glad you mentioned <agb2002>. His analysis is excellent. Any player at any level would be wise to just take their time (but not too much) and let themselves review a number of candidates to see where they lead. I think they will find their analysis improving as they will be able to eliminate or rule-out some candidates quickly; but in the end, the exercise has been a benefit to them
|Feb-20-14|| ||Patriot: <morf> When feeling tired, I am less likely to look around the board as much. I'm not sure if that is similar to biorhythm, because it does deal with mental sharpness. However, knowing you are tired or have a low biorhythm doesn't help much unless you plan around it (no tournaments on those days!). But that's not always practical because sometimes you have to pre-register for tournaments and then you are "locked in".|
Doesn't the military sometimes wake their soldiers to train them how to perform better while fatigued? I'm wondering if this kind of training is beneficial in chess? For example, practice tactics while very sleepy or at the end of a long day at work.
<Any player at any level would be wise to just take their time (but not too much) and let themselves review a number of candidates to see where they lead.> I think the real key is in what Dan says--look for moves that have a higher potential reward than risk. It's not just looking at every crazy sacrifice on every move, because that isn't practical. Noticing certain patterns though can be a tip on what to look at. Here I also think quick, short-term calculation is extremely important in finding good candidates.
|Feb-20-14|| ||David2009: Hello <Patriot>
I came across a graceful tribute to your chess mentor in the following link: http://www.echiquier-aquitaine.fr/p....
Evidently Dan Heisman's ideas are alive and well and are being followed in France!
|Feb-20-14|| ||Patriot: Hi <David2009>! Thanks, I told Dan and here's his response: "c'est vous plait Chess! :)"|
|Feb-20-14|| ||morfishine: Hello <Patriot> No doubt, this is indisputable: <I think the real key is in what Dan says--look for moves that have a higher potential reward than risk> Its hard to break out why a decision is made at a certain time; I suspect some times I'm biased and go that direction at times; but you are right, that some times I simply fail to take a deep breath and simply look at the board and try to find something simpler and/or stronger. |
How many times have we heard someone self-annotate: "Played instantly" with much bravado
The question is "How many instantly played moves do we never hear about because these come to grief and the author would just as soon not bring them to light?"
|Feb-20-14|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> I meant to add that there is a definite difference between physical fatigue and mental fatigue; especially as it pertains to chess|
|Feb-21-14|| ||Patriot: <morf> The Thursday problem was tricky but I was very impressed by the way you analyzed it.|
There is something so basic that I really need to be aware of, dealing with options. For instance, when in check there are only a few ways to get out: 1) move the king; 2) capture the checking piece; 3) interpose. It's amazing how easy it is sometimes to miss one of those options! On the Thursday problem, I noted that 41...Qxc4 is the main threat. I only saw one way to stop that threat (41.Rc8+). The thing is, 41.Ne3 also does this even though it looks very illogical at first. 41.Nd2 also does this and so does 41.a3, 41.a4, 41.b3, etc. It's not hard to see that some of these candidates are simply terrible because they are purely defensive such that white loses the knight for nothing. But the point is, I had options that simply were not visible to me! And this seems to be a recurring issue.
|Feb-22-14|| ||morfishine: Hello <Patriot>! You are very kind with this comment: <The Thursday problem was tricky but I was very impressed by the way you analyzed it> I tried to recall those ideas for analyzing that you've suggested and most of all, don't leave anything out, whether it be checking for the opponent's threats, reviewing all captures, trying to discover a pattern, etc. |
Logic is not a cure-all, but I find its useful to whittle down the candidates. On the Thursday problem Shirov vs I Papaioannou, 2009 The very first thing I did was commit to an "open mind" and just try to have fun and enjoy the problem. Then I spent about 5-10 seconds to decide on a "first impression". Thats when I thought it may be a 'spoiler' (since it didn't look promising for White with no Queen and his Knight en prise). I then reviewed the 2 candidates I felt were best: 41.h7 and 41.Rc8+ and found neither decisive.
At this point, I was spending a lot of time, so I had to either give-up or keep looking, so I began gazing at the Knight and I looked at both 41.Nd2 and 41.Ne3 (both of which cover c4). It was then I saw the big advantage of 41.Ne3 over 41.Nd2: 41.Ne3 prevents 41...Qh3; in other words if 41.Nd2 then Black doesn't play 41...Qxd2, but instead plays 41...Qh3!! and the h-pawn is lost by exactly one tempo. For example 41.Nd2 Qh3 42.Ne4 Qxh6 and I don't think Black should lose from here. However, 41.Ne3 blocks the path to <h3> forcing the Queen to spend a tempo capturing, so in essence it takes the Queen 2 moves to get to <h3> (or <h6>) allowing White time to play <42.h7>
Despite all that, I still couldn't find the win for White. Nonetheless, the problem was a good example of something tedious, yet fun!
The main problem I was having to "see" the win for White was: <41.Ne3 Qxe3 42.h7 e1=Q 43.h8=Q+ Ka7 44.Qc8 Q1xc1+ 45.Rxc1 Qf4>
click for larger view
I thought <patzer2> made a nice post that highlighted the continued problems for both sides: Shirov vs I Papaioannou, 2009
Perhaps in this instance, it would benefit to review not only all captures, but when reviewing enemy threats and/or direct captures, here just look over the Knight (since it is en prise) and see if any move works. I think not considering it is an isolated incident. At least it doesn't seem to be a recurring issue due to your patented thoroughness.
|Feb-22-14|| ||Patriot: Thanks <morf>, I really appreciate it.|
You brought up some great points about 41.Ne3 over 41.Nd2. I was thinking, 41.Nd2 Qxd2 42.h7 e1=Q 43.h8=Q+ 44.Bd8 Qxd8+ 45.Qxd8 Rxe1 which Houdini says is slightly in white's favor.
Also my point about "options", is we need to be fully aware of each of them. In the Sunday problem, I calculated what could happen after 25...Rd7 but I forced it from there and according to Houdini it is dead even. But 26.Bc5! is an option I did not consider. The thing is, this is one of the options whenever there is a threat.
In the case of threats:
1) Move the threatened piece
2) Capture the attacking piece
3) Interpose a piece between the attacker and threatened piece
26.Bc5 uses #4.
|Feb-23-14|| ||Patriot: <morf> I forgot a 5th option above: guard the piece! :-) If the threatened piece is of a higher value, usually guarding it won't help but this isn't always true. How can anyone be really good at analysis if they don't even know all their options? As Dan would say, "You can't play what you don't see."|
For the Sunday puzzle, I realized one mistake I had made in search of options--trying to think like a computer. Clearly I did not succeed, but the point is I searched for best moves for white after the main candidate and this is partly what got me in trouble. For example,
click for larger view
Here I thought about 28.Rh2 and thought I found something even stronger with 28.Nf5. 28...gxf5 29.Qh5 but 29...Bxe4 30.Qxh6 Bxh1. It turns out that simple is "good enough" with 28.Rh2. Sure, it doesn't compare to 28.f7 but if you find a forced win then you don't have to search like a machine to find the best move. So I had to remind myself to only look for something simple because if that proves to win, there's no need to find a genius move.
|Feb-24-14|| ||morfishine: Good morning <Patriot>! This is where calculation is absolutely critical. What must be avoided is settling on a "winning line" only to find later one has miscalculated!|
For example in yesterday's Sunday POTD, I had as one line: 26.Rxh7+ Kxh7 27.Rh1+ Bh6 28.Rxh6+ Kxh6 29.Qg4 and White wins
But Black can play 26...Qxh7 instead, which makes the visualization harder
|Feb-24-14|| ||Patriot: Hi <morf>! My thoughts are "Look for simple wins, but try hard to refute them." So it seems more proficient to spend less time on finding brilliant moves than simple one's that may win. If one can do this without a reasonable refutation, then you have already proven the main move is good.|
Simple wins aren't always there but if you find them they can save you a whole heap of time.
|Mar-03-14|| ||morfishine: Busy! Working 4-10 Later Thnx!|
|Mar-03-14|| ||morfishine: Hello <Patriot> All I've been doing is playing 5-min and watching college basketball|
|Mar-05-14|| ||morfishine: <Patriot> They do have 5-min basketball, its called overtime! And thats when the craziest, most aggressive stuff occurs...wait, that sounds like speed chess! :)|
|Mar-05-14|| ||The Last Straw: 1 min looks even better :)
I get too many draws from clearly winning positions (draw because I run out of time but my opponents only have bare kings (not enough material to deliver checkmate))
|Mar-06-14|| ||morfishine: Hello <Patriot> Nice job on yesterday's POTD: A Mallahi vs A Al-Bahadly, 2001|
Sorry, I'm running a day behind
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 42 OF 42 ·
A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com