Actually, I just discovered that my April Fool variation 1.Nf3 Nc6 2.a3 isn't even a novelty -- it was played a couple of times in the 1990s. Plus a few more that transposed from 1.a3.

It's not really self-pity. It's the observation that, if you worry too much about losing, you'll draw too many games. And, oddly, I don't mind the last-round loss: he played very well and got a nice attacking gem to take home. Wish it had been me, is all.

This is not always true,but it is true enough to sustain the competitive spirit in this average player,and I suspect many like me.

"When a strong player sits down to play you,and he sees only a weak player across the table,send word,you might be late for dinner."

I had an interesting chat with a fellow 'returnee', also back in tournaments after a long gap. We agreed that we were neither teenagers (for whom competitive activity is linked to hormones, or something) or retired old folks quietly pursuing a hobby -- but somewhere in between. And we know we're not going to suddenly become GMs, so the point is to try to play interesting games. So my two losses were actually more interesting than two of the draws. They, the draws, were just tiredness and bad karma. Or bad (chicken) korma, even.

Last year, I'd actually been playing chess -- both with engines and friends -- for a few weeks before playing in a tournament. This year, I hadn't actually played at all. And you need to play to stay sharp.

I also learned I've become a soft-hearted old git who can't refuse draw offers from small children. Especially when I know that my maneuvers confuse me, and must totally bewilder them.

Except for the wide-awake alert ones who see through the bluff and tear me apart.

Basta. The trick is more chess -- live, dead, OTB, UTT (under the table), online, in a club, in a bar, anywhere.

I went back to tournaments 4 years ago after almost 20 years of complete abstinence. The first thing I learned is to pay respect to any player.

In theory, anybody does. We all start thinking "yes, he is 400 points less than me, but be careful! anybody can be dangerous", but as soon as we notice an imprecision in his play, say, blocking his c-pawn with the knight in queen pawn openings, intentionally making bad his own good bishop, and our respect goes away.

Unfortunately, our attention goes away as well, and we start playing "hope chess". Making tricky moves that are good only if not answered properly. We quickly find out that one doesn't need to be a positional expert to see and properly meet stupid tricks.

I don't know if this is your case, but this was mine, and I'm happy I had enough intellectual honesty to admit it and fix this problem.

Now, I'm well known among my chessmates for almost never losing against a lower rated player, in spite of my aggressive and chaotic style (last but one tournament: 4 wins 2 losses; last tournament: 2 wins 3 losses - no draws!).

As are my games with <RookFile>, if I may say so myself!

There is definitely something to be said for "Freestyle" correspondence games. They are much more relaxing, you don't have to worry about blundering away an otherwise well-played game, the quality is invariably very high, and you end up learning a LOT if you take it seriously.

Case A. I'm playing a young guy with a 2300 rating and a master title in the mail. Everyone tells me he's a tactical wizard. I get a quiet balanced game from a French Tarrasch, and then he throws his last three pieces, Q, R & N, at my king. I can play ...Be6, pinning the knight twice, but letting him play Rg3xg7+ -- then, after I play ...Kh8, all his pieces are attacked and he must lose the knight.

I looked at this for 20 mins, could see nothing wrong -- but just refused to believe he could have done it by mistake. So I made a 'safe' defensive pawn move, and eventually lost a pawn ending by a single tempo.

I fed the position to Fritz afterwards. I should've played the winning ...Be6. Apart from win/loss considerations, it's aesthetically more attractive. And maybe he'd have found a meta-Fritzian super-tactical way to mate me after losing a piece, but so what?

Case B. Another French, an Advance. I actually encourage my 1570-ish opponent to launch a kingside attack, having prepared a complex, trappy response. I play it. And he outplays me in the complications.

So, yes, these actions are idiotic. But I don't think you *can* simply play the board. My opponents weren't doing so -- the ones with significantly lower ratings offered me draws, while the higher guy kept chasing a win literally to the last pawn.

As for somebody playing ...Nc6 in a closed opening? I've played that. And one guy who played it against me used to win tournaments playing the Chigorin to 1.d4 and the Nimzowitsch Defence to 1.e4, both with an early ...Nc6.

I don't think you can read anything at all into opening moves. An unfamiliar move, at my level, can be either a master-style piece of home preparation or an amateur-style memory lapse.

You know which line I like to play ...Nc6 and willingly block my c-pawn? It probably won't come as a surprise to you -- it is a variation in my beloved Winawer:

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. Nge2 Nc6!?

One experiment involved alternating two identities for myself -- one opened 1.e4 and played gambits, the other 1.Nf3 and played my usual more positional style.

The gambiteer was more successful at the lower settings, usually winning quickly. But for anything over 2000 my positional play worked better.

This insightful comment was written by <Domdaniel>, but it might as well have been written by John L. Watson, too, who expresses similar sentiments in his superb book <Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch>.

Right now, I think I need to reconstruct my approach to the Advance variation. I used to have a huge plus score with it, but that was mainly because stronger players tended to avoid it -- which is no longer true.

I've tried both the Wade line with ...Qb6, Bd7-b5, and the variation with a quick ...Nge7-f5, but I'm not really happy with either. And it has now been played against me twice, each time in the last round of a tournament by an attack-minded opponent.

Yes, admittedly most of my experience with the line came from my days of ICC blitz (which ultimately became too addictive and harmful for my real chess, so I gave it up). But a couple of people have played 4.Nge2 against me in tournament play as well, and both times I got the better position from the opening (my opponents were rated slightly lower than me, but still... I would like nothing more than for a USCF master to use that line against me as White in tournament play). Speaking of Watson, 4...Nc6 is a line which Watson (a.k.a. "God of the French Defense") recommends.

(1) You can achieve a huge positional plus by move 20 or 25, but not have the time or technique to convert it into a win. I've drawn a lot of games this way -- in the days of adjournments and slow endings they'd be winnable, but a blitz finish means either an agreed draw or a clock lottery.

(2) The available role models are mainly GM games played at a more civilized tempo. When you try to gradually increase the pressure while keeping the position closed and most of the pieces on the board, it's very easy to go wrong. I'm not saying pure tactics are any easier, but at least there are tangible threats and attacks -- unlike a tension-filled position where chaos could suddenly break out in six different ways.