I must take a good look at your games with RookFile tonight -- I've been too busy to keep up for the past few days.

Gone a few days, you come back and rack up three pages-- Bravo!!

Congratulations on your tournament play, I've read all the posts and I think you played admirably, and it sounds like you had a mix of fun and heartbreak. Also sounds like you learned a fair bit as well.

Why not post your GEM from the tourney here in your forum so we can look at it? Put your own annotations in.

Crow about your GEM!!

I've had to suspend all chess activity until after April 8 due to school, but I confess I "snuck" an internet game in yesterday, and thought of you the whole time.

He played <St. George>, first time I ever faced it-- he was 1648 rating. I knew nothing of what to do, of course.

I anticipated an immediate queenside pawn advance from him, which is what happened. So all I did was "English" my c pawn so my knight wouldn't get in the way.

I managed to pick off a pawn on the queenside and trade down to a winning endgame-- very happy! Plus it was fun playing against a new opening.

Good thing you are back! Last time you left for a long time me and <Eyal> started a <Domaholics> support group....

WAY TO GO, BRO!!

It was not true, said Tony, that he and Gump were not on speaking terms: "I said good morning to Gump as recently as 1994 in Moscow. Never the fastest or most fluent of orators, I assume he is still trying to think of a witty retort."

Beating Karpov with 1...a6 couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. And having had some experience on the black side of both, I suspect the St George is actually sounder than the French.

Heh

Is there a <St. Andrew's> opening, and, if so, does it have any relation to the famous <golf course>?

I need to know (POST YOUR GEM please)

The way I play it it's kind of a variation on KID, and I actually won a correspondence game with it recently (posted on my profile).

Black moves <Nh6>, and the trick is that there are good squares for the Knight to occupy from that position that he would never normally occupy.

I think it can throw off White if he attacks Kingside and has never faced the <Hippo>.

Openings like the St. George have good surprise value and for that reason I can understand why some people would use them and have satisfactory results with them in tournament play. In a correspondence game, of course, the surprise value doesn't really help as much, so it's impressive to me that you are able to use such openings successfully.

And tomorrow, and tomorrow.

You'd think that schools could design a curriculum that is not a cruel reminder of the <Scotch Play>...

Regards,
CC

(see <chess classics> forum for an explanation for my strange adieu)

I haven't really been "gone" this time, yer maj -- I think I managed to check in briefly about once a day -- but, like you, I've also been busy with other stuff apart from chess. This may last another day or two. Am I being overtaken?

<Plato> Yeah, that was going too far: obviously the French is not unsound -- although it can easily be misplayed, even by those of us who think we know it pretty well.

Here's another mistake I made recently. Normally, as black, I'm happy to play Winawer lines where white plays Qg4 and Qxg7, often followed by Qxh7. But in one game a situation arose where I could have allowed Qxg7, but not in a known theoretical position. We'd gone off down a sideline, I'd made a few moves on the queenside, and the white queen had reached g4 by a circuitous route. Objectively, it was better for black than the mainline: I could get a big initiative by letting him play Qxg7.

But I chickened out, playing the defensive ...Ne7-g6 instead. Which wasn't a bad move, but it was a missed opportunity. My thinking at the time was "I don't want to blast the position open yet, I'll just maneuver a bit more and grab the next chance that comes along".

Bad thinking. There was no next chance and the game was later drawn. The lesson is simple: if you're willing to sac a pawn (or two) in a known theoretical line, you should also be able to do it in similar non-theoretic positions.

But I've made the same mistake a few times. I played the Guimard French, 3.Nd2 Nc6, in a club match in the 1980s -- against Tim Harding, who had written a monograph on it. The real error, I think, is playing a dubious line against somebody who knows it very well. He murdered me.

Much the same happened when I played a Benoni against Ray Keene in a simul. He was an anti-Benoni expert in those days.

But I also drew a simul game with another GM, the aforementioned Tony Miles, with the French. I noticed, as he walked around playing his first move, that he was using 1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.Nf3 -- maybe as a way of differentiating the games, so that he didn't accidentally mix up two similar positions. Or maybe just to amuse himself.

My game went 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nd2 b6 -- and I was happy, confident that a QP player like Miles would be on unfamiliar turf here.

This confidence may have been misplaced. Like many players, he'd started out playing 1.e4, so a French was hardly a shock. And just this week, reading a collection of his writing, I learned that Miles had analysed the 3...b6 line in the 1970s.

I also found that the strange material imbalance on the board when he offered a draw -- I had a queen and a couple of extra pawns versus rook, knight and bishop -- had also occurred in two of his tournament games from that period.

As opposed to my loose, but well intended, remark:

<If you get into the action more often and ignore any significance of ratings, (why bother.. really..)> etc.

Being *aware* of the difference in rating between you and a certain opponent is of course inevitable -- as you participate in a tournament you get that info. But a funny thing occurs in sports and so in chess as well..

We have basically grown used (by hearing/reading it over and over), to not only think in differences in supposed strength but also add vivid, exaggerated, exciting descriptions to go along with the stats. Partly because it's Fun! OK cool, But partly to <look up to> or to look <down on>.. Put labels on.

As an example my countryman van Wely is a formidable chessplayer, but even Dutch guys kibbing on ICC on him say that he "doesn't have a real understanding of the game -- and that he is very clever "fooling around"compared to those 2700+ Big guns.. Like Ponomariov has a lot deeper understanding and such.. And van Wely is rated 2680+ for crying out loud! These are not Trolls mind you.. respectable ratings around 1900, trying to talk sensible to eachother. Then comparisons are made to players of 2400+ and they are of course just foddling around *compared* to a 2600+ guy/girl. And the same is said for the 2200 vs the 1900 etc.

So one should consider your choice of moves partly depending on the relative strength (rating) of your opponent but really should try to <minimize> it. Subconsciously we do it too much already. You dug that up in your previous posts and <brought it to the surface> - which, I think, is fantastic. That's the trick - bring it up, face it, and learn from it.

Somehow we've adopted those sorts of thinking and it is hard to shake off. But I think it is absolutely necessary to <minmize> attaching certain attributes to opponents with a certain rating, in order to play at full strength. -- Somewhere in the sky, is the limit.

The beautiful World vs Nickel game was a good example. (group effort and endless mutual encouragement)

Btw Your forum is filling up nicely and swiftly, very chess-related!

He included 3 games where he explains that he missed not only the best move, but actually a winning move, against GM competition because

"I assumed he wouldn't make a mistake"

Or

"I psychologically overestimated the danger of the position for me"

<Josh> says "play the board", <Bobby> says "play the man" but I don't think <Bobby> was too worried about other people's ratings.

We mortals tend to worry.

I find that the higher rated the player is, it can go either way. Sometimes I play scared and lose, but sometimes I play super extra careful and hard and win.

Point being, ratings can have a HUGE psychological effect if you let them.

This <Plato> is an interesting fellow, this is the first time I saw him when he wasn't arguing with <DanielPi> or razzing <rookfile> in their very entertaining grudge match.

Did you know he is fluent in Hebrew?

He sounds like a whiz with the black pieces.

not bad for a dead idealist philosopher, I say!!

I speak conversational Hebrew well (at least well enough to understand and to make myself understood), but I'm not quite fluent yet. It occasionally happens that I forget the word or phrase I'm looking for or that I just don't know it to begin with. I'm still studying Hebrew on my own and practicing with some Israeli friends of mine in New York, so I hope that soon I will be completely fluent in the beautiful language of my ancestors.

I'm glad <eyal> doesn't work for the CG grammar police, because otherwise his thread may have doubled in size just listing all of the mistakes I made in my attempts to converse with him in Hebrew ;-)

I have relatives and friends in Israel and I can easily imagine living there (at least for a year) at some point in the future... I want my Hebrew to be as good as possible by the time I go. So it's good for me to practice whenever I get the chance, and <Eyal> kindly provided another opportunity.

Funny stuff there in NYC... I loved it there, we used to visit from McGill university in Montreal on the "Montrealer" train...

Your story reminds me of the <Monty Python> English-Hungarian dictionary, which leads <John Cleese as a Hungarian in an English Shop> to attempt to order cigarettes with the phrase "I want to fondle your bum."

LOL.

You'll be pleased to know that I've added your name in my profile under the <favorite kibbitzer's> list. Since I add the names in the order I meet the people I like, and since <daneilPi> is the funniest guy I ever met ever, he is always last in the list. Which means you are now placed next to your MORTAL ENEMY in my profile.

Just saying.

Not trying to cause trouble or fan the flames.

Heh

BTW, I've visited the <Mesopotamian Step Pyramid> site frequently to check in on your grudge match. The chess positions are sharp, interesting. Good example of the beauty of <Centaur Chess>, really. Just as interesting is the hilarious razzing you and <rook file> (your other MORTAL ENEMY)-- side bar-- aren't you a little young to have TWO motal enemies already? Just wondering...) OK back to the story. I predicted weeks ago that after the grudge match you and <Rook File> will be best friends.

<Enter Hungarian gentleman with phrase book>

Hungarian: I will not buy this record, it is scratched.

Tobacconist: Sorry?

Hungarian: I will not buy this record, it is scratched.

Tobacconist: No, no, no. This ... tobacconist's.

Hungarian: Ah! I will not buy this tobacconist's, it is scratched.

Tobacconist: No, no, no ...tobacco...er, cigarettes?

Hungarian: Yes, cigarettes. My hovercraft is full of eels.

Tobacconist: What?

Hungarian: Yah, yah. <he takes cigarettes and matches and pulls out loose change; he consults his book> Er, do you want ... do you want to come back to my place, bouncy bouncy?

Tobacconist: I don't think you're using that right.

(Btw, don't believe <Plato> - his Hebrew is quite good, actually)

This <"Regards, CC"> thing is really beginning to confuse me. Will the real <CC> please stand up already? Please? I'm trying to focus on the positions in my grudge match with <RookFile>.

Too tired to write now... I'll be back from my vacation Monday, so I'll catch all you <CC> clones later.

<If you LET them.> Well said. Very hard it is. But if you can bring down the amount of distracting thoughts in your brain, your performance-level should go up right through the roof! heh

C'est une "challonge" as the french would say, but worth the efforte.

<We mortals tend to worry.> C'est vrai, mais Pourquoi?